[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal for consistent Kconfig usage by the hypervisor build system
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 14:54:19 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=oqxiTy4sto+kgAfSlVrCbTFXexPFYV6JU8DMt4QBwp0=; b=OoUu16/QkqNaaZYIFx3cdV35ZS4Ba9hG9QUbK54a/TUCCLtnQfNpQYODq/wyXbOIOT22A3RAr/Moepsq8DRtPQcQqJQVuIzjvnuKCwkMGUMJs6XVzFpYZ7Cl9tu0sv8aOgvmRYgGZxy0CC1eLVi1PiecIHTD5vE05CEEXhiK5Xsqsiw2KjjpwluwNmhz/tSpZkNcTJqjpi013fgsxcY+ZgkLq4ngGwdkPFplC0v+7hF73zwrEvwidQhHmEITb7Dhwet/rb7o1YLw/x9nF1BwfiKqrBew45lu5hmZm9fplA3cOBXXijKV5/OI73wkhuXIOYMyGhnxSAxQPioHWkCf7g==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ZWQlktb9H1v90w7ST5vBLzYz2JMrRSxpXIHQKah/B5xzTGT70F+x4q8l11zHrhCCN5cWxsjdWM0le4hV6lSc7nbj5WkPeBg1wvM5WoVnANnsHd7DDOjmf1FfL7S9L5/bshwBEBORlrDv2RBT8PbTtJiYbROmLDsO2tZ3TRFkZWv42u5QNMqdcOSrHM3DqNzDdLVaQp6OEDJx33ncHZLvEFZtgQUp10VSyih5vSM99uSx1imheKp5KBFayRt2ixIMrjKl8f9N1xGnPwqCviGyDo4U9aUJp4aXTOXi4zIa3/BlfQvZt6GKUPV+FxxRU6irIFphxMg3yVzG3fyf52H7Xw==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 13:54:32 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 30.01.2023 13:27, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 12/01/2023 16:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> It was additionally suggested that, for a better user experience, unmet
>> dependencies which are known to result in build failures (which at times may
>> be
>> hard to associate back with the original cause) would be re-checked by
>> Makefile
>> based logic, leading to an early build failure with a comprehensible error
>> message. Personally I'd prefer this to be just warnings (first and foremost
>> to
>> avoid failing the build just because of a broken or stale check), but I can
>> see
>> that they might be overlooked when there's a lot of other output.
>
> If we wanted the Makefile to check the available features, then I would
> prefer an early error rather than warning. That said...
>
>> In any event
>> we may want to try to figure an approach which would make sufficiently sure
>> that
>> Makefile and Kconfig checks don't go out of sync.
>
> ... this is indeed a concern. How incomprehensible would the error be if
> we don't check it in the Makefile?
That'll depend on the particular feature / functionality, and might range from
very obvious and easy to very well obfuscated.
Jan
|
