Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/21] acpi/hvmloader: Link ACPI object files directly

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/21/2016 07:40 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.09.16 at 13:38, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH v4 10/21] acpi/hvmloader: Link ACPI object 
>> files directly"):
>>> On 21.09.16 at 13:29, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I think `.dummy' would be a better string, if indeed it's a string
>>>> which we expect always to be stripped, and not to appear in any
>>>> filenames.
>>> Another (currently later, but I'd prefer it to be moved ahead)
>>> patch uses this for actual temporary files.
>> OK, then I don't understand what's wrong with ".tmp" ...
> So did I think when looking at the patch, but then I also thought
> (at least until I saw that actual files get created with that suffix)
> that it doesn't really matter. Boris?

I think there are two questions about using TMP_SUFFIX=tmp__

1. It is indeed used for two purposes --- one is to work around the bug
and the other is to append to intermediate build files (that are later
removed). There are two instances where I need to handle the bug and
thus I use a variable and not a literal ".dummy". And since I already
have (or, in this iteration of the series, will have in the later patch)
TMP_SUFFIX I figured I'd use it here as well.

2. ".tmp__" vs ".tmp": Because the temporary files are generated not in
tools/libacpi but in the directory of the libacpi user (such as libxl)
it is possible that a Makefile there might use ".tmp' for its own
purposes so I am trying here to minimize chances of a conflict. Maybe
even ".tmp_acpi"?

-boris


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel