Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] ppc: Enable full Xen build

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 20.09.2023 13:04, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:59 AM George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 6:27 PM Shawn Anastasio
>> <sanastasio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/18/23 8:19 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.09.2023 21:03, Shawn Anastasio wrote:
>>>>> Shawn Anastasio (4):
>>>>>   xen/ppc: Implement bitops.h
>>>>>   xen/ppc: Define minimal stub headers required for full build
>>>>
>>>> Compilation fails after applying this.
>>>>
>>>>>   xen/ppc: Add stub function and symbol definitions
>>>>
>>>> Continuing nevertheless, linking fails after this.
>>>>
>>>>>   xen/ppc: Enable full Xen build
>>>>
>>>> Things build okay for me when the full series is applied. Generally we
>>>> wouldn't deliberately break the build between any two patches; doing so
>>>> may be okay here (except I guest CI's build-each-commit would be upset),
>>>> but I'll do so only upon explicit request (and with no-one else objecting).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry about that. Going forward I'll take more care to ensure that
>>> partially-applied series still build correctly. For this series though,
>>> if you could make an exception it would be appreciated.
>>
>> What would be the reason for the exception?
>>
>> We don't want to follow the rules just for the rules' sake, but the
>> rule is there for a reason: primarily to keep bisection working.  Not
>> sure of osstest is testing the PPC build yet, but if it were, then
>> this sort of thing would make it more difficult for the automatic
>> bisector to find regressions in other parts of the code.  Having
>> non-building patches can also confuse "archaeologists" -- people a few
>> years hence who are trying to understand what the code does.
>>
>> Is there a reason that this series would be particularly difficult to
>> reorganize in a way that would keep it building?  (Haven't looked at
>> it in detail.)
> 
> Sorry, didn't notice that Jan had said it "might be okay here".  Jan,
> don't count this as an objection.

Just to mention it (besides the fact that I did the commits already
before your reply) - at this stage I'm not sure bisection of PPC alone
is particularly important, yet. Hence why I said "might be okay".

Jan