Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: sync Kconfig with Linux v4.17

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 06/22/2018 08:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 22.06.18 at 00:24, <dougtrav@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > Working patch by patch isn't feasible because of the renames.
> > > > > I don't understand - how does path/file naming conflict with working
> > > > > patch by patch? Surely a relatively simple sed command could be used
> > > > > to change the paths in each patch according to our tree layout. That's
> > > > > basically what I'm doing with the MWAIT idle driver; granted, that's just
> > > > > a single file.
> > > > Its 106 commits between the last time I got this in sync. We also don’t have
> > > > kbuild and we have a little shim file to map things to our build system so
> > > > for each patch I would have to implement some of those regressions.
> > > Well, I still don't understand: You had to make those 106 commits apply
> > > to your tree as well in order to have create the patch you've submitted.
> > > Whatever you did (even if you created a giant patch first and massaged
> > > that one), the same could have been done for the individual commits. If
> > > this indeed takes more than a simple sed invocation, perhaps it would be
> > > worth adding a little script to our repo doing just that?
> > So I didn't take those 106 commits individually as it was indicated that
> > would have been NACKed.
> Interesting. Were there any reasons indicated why that would be?
I could see few reasons to be grumpy with such a series in my inbox. 
Sending a series with 106 is just insane, more that probably no-one is 
going to look at patches one by one (they are imported from Linux).
This is very similar to when a file is imported or update files from 
Linux (e.g usban, SMMU). We don't backport one by one the commit. 
Instead we batch in a single commit.
So why does it have to be different here?

> > I didn't even use git proper, I ultimately checked
> > out the tag in my linux.git and used cp to copy the files over that I
> > mentioned in the commit message. Then I removed the files that went away
> > in Linux. I then attempted to build it and fixed up paths and other
> > snippets until it all worked. Its a manual process in its very nature.
> >
> > Originally when I proposed bringing in Kconfig I had used a script
> > that maintained things in the same paths as Linux and indeed allowed us
> > to just pull in patches from Linux. I believe the original RFC for
> > adding Kconfig started with Linux v4.1 or v4.2 and I had used that
> > script to update the final version to v4.3. This was ultimately not used
> > because the Xen-specific changes we make (e.g. paths changed, removal of
> > tests, use of Config.mk) that ultimately this a manual process.
> >
> > Ultimately are you looking for v2 to be which of the following:
> > - a series of 106 patches where each one is editted with the necessary
> >    changes to make it work standalone (e.g. paths fixed, removal of
> >    tests)
> This is what I personally would prefer. But seeing that you say others
> objected to this approach already, I'm not sure what to suggest.
>
> > - the current patch with details about the process documented in
> >    README.source (which is a Xen specific file) and an expanded commit
> >    message
I am not sure what would the README.source would give you here? Will it 
give a mapping with Linux commit for copyright reasons?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel