Xen devel - Oct 2006 - [PATCH] Minor fixes for non-Linux platforms

Hello!

The attached patch makes the stuff in tools/check/  work for *BSD systems.
Consider this as a start to make xen buildable on non-Linux platforms.

I don''t expect to get this into xen 3.0.3, but I hope this can go into 
-unstable.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Friday 13 October 2006 13:54, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 13/10/06 10:56, "Bastian Blank" <bastian@waldi.eu.org>
wrote:
> >> diff -r f14a67a35bec tools/check/check_brctl
> >> --- a/tools/check/check_brctl Thu Oct 12 17:53:51 2006 +0100
> >> +++ b/tools/check/check_brctl Thu Oct 12 10:17:33 2006 +0200
> >> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> >> -#!/bin/bash
> >> +#!/bin/sh
> >
> > Thats a bad idea. Some of the scripts uses non-POSIX extensions and
> > /bin/sh is normaly only defined as POSIX compilant.
>
> The scripts are tiny. We should stop them using those non-compliant
> extensions. We use /bin/sh in just about all our other scripts (and some of
> those are *way* more complex).
One more try. Patch attached.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:33:41AM +0200, Christoph Egger
wrote:
> diff -r f14a67a35bec tools/check/check_brctl
> --- a/tools/check/check_brctl	Thu Oct 12 17:53:51 2006 +0100
> +++ b/tools/check/check_brctl	Thu Oct 12 10:17:33 2006 +0200
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -#!/bin/bash
> +#!/bin/sh
Thats a bad idea. Some of the scripts uses non-POSIX extensions and
/bin/sh is normaly only defined as POSIX compilant.

Bastian

-- 
Men will always be men -- no matter where they are.
		-- Harry Mudd, "Mudd''s Women", stardate 1329.8

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 13/10/06 10:56, "Bastian Blank" <bastian@waldi.eu.org> wrote:
>> diff -r f14a67a35bec tools/check/check_brctl
>> --- a/tools/check/check_brctl Thu Oct 12 17:53:51 2006 +0100
>> +++ b/tools/check/check_brctl Thu Oct 12 10:17:33 2006 +0200
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -#!/bin/bash
>> +#!/bin/sh
> 
> Thats a bad idea. Some of the scripts uses non-POSIX extensions and
> /bin/sh is normaly only defined as POSIX compilant.
The scripts are tiny. We should stop them using those non-compliant
extensions. We use /bin/sh in just about all our other scripts (and some of
those are *way* more complex).

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 10/12/06, Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com>
wrote:
> One more try. Patch attached.
In check_brctl, you remove the error function but you don''t remove all
users of it.

    christian

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Christoph Egger wrote:  [Thu Oct 12 2006, 08:33:22AM
EDT]
> diff -r 49d096ef3d76 tools/check/chk
> --- a/tools/check/chk	Fri Oct 13 10:58:29 2006 +0100
> +++ b/tools/check/chk	Thu Oct 12 14:31:08 2006 +0200
> @@ -1,18 +1,7 @@
> -#!/bin/bash
> -
> -function usage {
> -    echo "Usage:"
> -    echo "\t$0 [build|install|clean]"
> -    echo
> -    echo "Check suitability for Xen build or install."
> -    echo "Exit with 0 if OK, 1 if not."
> -    echo "Prints only failed tests."
> -    echo
> -    echo "Calling with ''clean'' removes generated
files."
> -    exit 1
> -}
> +#!/bin/sh
>  
>  export PATH=${PATH}:/sbin:/usr/sbin
> +export OS=`uname -s`
export with variable assignment doesn''t work on most Bourne shells.
These need to be split up:

PATH=${PATH}:/sbin:/usr/sbin
OS=`uname -s`
export PATH OS
>  case $1 in
>      build)
> @@ -25,7 +14,15 @@ case $1 in
>          exit 0
>          ;;
>      *)
> -        usage
> +	echo "Usage:"
> +	echo "\t$0 [build|install|clean]"
\t isn''t standard (it doesn''t even work on Linux without -e).
You should insert a real tab there instead.

Aron

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Christoph,

Just wondering, why did you get rid of all the functions from these
scripts?  AFAIK, every Bourne shell ever made supports functions,
though they might need to be declared with the older syntax:

    func() {
        asdfasdf
    }

Aron

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 05:56:21PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Christoph,
> 
> Just wondering, why did you get rid of all the functions from these
> scripts?  AFAIK, every Bourne shell ever made supports functions,
> though they might need to be declared with the older syntax:
> 
>     func() {
>         asdfasdf
>     }
IEEE 1003.1 section 2.9.5 seems to be appropriate:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_09_05

And that indeed shows functions being supported as above.  Surely we can work to
this spec on this matter?

Ewan.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Friday 13 October 2006, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Christoph Egger wrote:  [Thu Oct 12 2006, 08:33:22AM EDT]
>
[...]
> > +#!/bin/sh
> >
> >  export PATH=${PATH}:/sbin:/usr/sbin
> > +export OS=`uname -s`
>
> export with variable assignment doesn''t work on most Bourne
shells.
> These need to be split up:
>
> PATH=${PATH}:/sbin:/usr/sbin
> OS=`uname -s`
> export PATH OS
>
Fixed.

[...]
> > -        usage
> > +	echo "Usage:"
> > +	echo "\t$0 [build|install|clean]"
>
> \t isn''t standard (it doesn''t even work on Linux without
-e).
> You should insert a real tab there instead.
Fixed.
> Just wondering, why did you get rid of all the functions from these
> scripts?  AFAIK, every Bourne shell ever made supports functions,
> though they might need to be declared with the older syntax:
>
>    func() {
>        asdfasdf
>    }
The scripts are so small, you gain nothing with functions - not even
just for readability.

One exception: The usage function in the chk script actually improves
readability. So I converted it to the old and portable Bourne Shell syntax.

On Friday 13 October 2006, Christian Limpach wrote:
> In check_brctl, you remove the error function but you don''t remove
all
> users of it.
Fixed.

New Patch attached.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

This is a resend of the patch with a minor adaption for the Solaris patches.
The patch is against C/S 11791.

Please apply to xen-unstable.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel