Julien Grall
2013-May-02 23:17 UTC
[PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
The commit 3378685 "Add conditional build of subsystems to configure.ac" allows the user to disable/enable some components of Xen. After this commit some targets are still called on every subsystems. For Xen on ARM, the makefile targets build, clean and distclean will failed. Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> --- Makefile | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 32efb70..2217c20 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ all: dist SUBSYSTEMS?=xen kernels tools stubdom docs TARGS_DIST=$(patsubst %, dist-%, $(SUBSYSTEMS)) TARGS_INSTALL=$(patsubst %, install-%, $(SUBSYSTEMS)) +TARGS_BUILD=$(patsubst %, install-%, $(SUBSYSTEMS)) +TARGS_CLEAN=$(patsubst %, clean-%, $(SUBSYSTEMS)) +TARGS_DISTCLEAN=$(patsubst %, distclean-%, $(SUBSYSTEMS)) export XEN_ROOT=$(CURDIR) include Config.mk @@ -23,15 +26,28 @@ include buildconfigs/Rules.mk install: $(TARGS_INSTALL) .PHONY: build -build: kernels +build: $(TARGS_BUILD) + +.PHONY: build-xen +build-xen: $(MAKE) -C xen build + +.PHONY: build-tools +build-tools: $(MAKE) -C tools build + +.PHONY: build-stubdom $(MAKE) -C stubdom build ifeq (x86_64,$(XEN_TARGET_ARCH)) XEN_TARGET_ARCH=x86_32 $(MAKE) -C stubdom pv-grub endif + +.PHONY: build-docs +build-docs: $(MAKE) -C docs build +build-kernels: kernels + # The test target is for unit tests that can run without an installation. Of # course, many tests require a machine running Xen itself, and these are # handled elsewhere. @@ -146,30 +162,59 @@ debball: dist # clean doesn''t do a kclean .PHONY: clean -clean:: +clean:: $(TARGS_CLEAN) + +.PHONY: clean-xen +clean-xen: $(MAKE) -C xen clean + +.PHONY: clean-tools +clean-tools: $(MAKE) -C tools clean + +.PHONY: clean-stubdom +clean-stubdom: $(MAKE) -C stubdom crossclean ifeq (x86_64,$(XEN_TARGET_ARCH)) XEN_TARGET_ARCH=x86_32 $(MAKE) -C stubdom crossclean endif + +.PHONY: clean-docs +clean-docs: $(MAKE) -C docs clean +clean-%: + @: # do nothing + # clean, but blow away kernel build tree plus tarballs .PHONY: distclean -distclean: +distclean: $(TARGS_DISTCLEAN) -rm config/Toplevel.mk + rm -rf dist patches/tmp + rm -rf patches/*/.makedep + rm -rf config.log config.status config.cache autom4te.cache + +.PHONY: distclean-xen +distclean-xen: $(MAKE) -C xen distclean + +.PHONY: distclean-tools +tools-distclean: $(MAKE) -C tools distclean + +.PHONY: distclean-stubdom +distclean-stubdom: $(MAKE) -C stubdom distclean ifeq (x86_64,$(XEN_TARGET_ARCH)) XEN_TARGET_ARCH=x86_32 $(MAKE) -C stubdom distclean endif + +.PHONY: distclean-docs +distclean-docs: $(MAKE) -C docs distclean - rm -rf dist patches/tmp + +distclean-kernels: for i in $(ALLKERNELS) ; do $(MAKE) $$i-delete ; done - rm -rf patches/*/.makedep - rm -rf config.log config.status config.cache autom4te.cache # Linux name for GNU distclean .PHONY: mrproper -- 1.7.10.4
Jan Beulich
2013-May-03 07:15 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
>>> On 03.05.13 at 01:17, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote: > The commit 3378685 "Add conditional build of subsystems to configure.ac" > allows the user to disable/enable some components of Xen. After this commit > some targets are still called on every subsystems.For build this is correct to do, but for any clean target it isn''t - clean should remove leftovers from earlier builds even if there was an intermediate reconfigure.> For Xen on ARM, the makefile targets build, clean and distclean will failed.If they fail, this will need fixing elsewhere then. Jan
Ian Campbell
2013-May-03 08:43 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 08:15 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:> >>> On 03.05.13 at 01:17, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote: > > The commit 3378685 "Add conditional build of subsystems to configure.ac" > > allows the user to disable/enable some components of Xen. After this commit > > some targets are still called on every subsystems. > > For build this is correct to do, but for any clean target it isn''t - clean > should remove leftovers from earlier builds even if there was an > intermediate reconfigure.Yes, I think so too.> > For Xen on ARM, the makefile targets build, clean and distclean will failed. > > If they fail, this will need fixing elsewhere then.Part of the issue is that there are targets which are simply not ported to ARM and therefore are missing bits of infrastructure , e.g. mini-os where one if the clean failures is lack of extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk. However I think it is wrong to tie the clean/distclean of these into the configurey selection mechanism, i.e. mini-os should know that it only support x86 (for the minute) and DTRT when called for ARM (which is likely to be nothing much). Perhaps a stub extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk is the answer? The other case is the kernel distclean, which fails with buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common:32: buildconfigs/src.: No such file or directory but that seems to fail on x86 too. Having disabled it by default so long ago perhaps the time has come to simply remove this stuff? I don''t know if anyone is still using it -- the test system perhaps? Or it could be fixed with the below, I think. Ian. 8<--------------------- build: fix kernel build rules. Rename mk.linux-2.6-common to common.linux-2.6 so that it does not get included in the ALLKERNELS logic. Specify XEN_LINUX_SOURCE for linux-2.6-native, looking at 414614d84e67 and todays linux-2.6-xen.mk I am guessing that hg-clone of the 2.6.18 tree is the expected method. To be honest I didn''t even try it... Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> --- NB git diff -M style diff, includes the rename... .../{mk.linux-2.6-common => common.linux-2.6} | 0 buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 | 2 +- buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native | 3 ++- buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops | 2 +- buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest | 2 +- buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen | 2 +- 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Ian Campbell
2013-May-03 09:53 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 09:43 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 08:15 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 03.05.13 at 01:17, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote: > > > The commit 3378685 "Add conditional build of subsystems to configure.ac" > > > allows the user to disable/enable some components of Xen. After this commit > > > some targets are still called on every subsystems. > > > > For build this is correct to do, but for any clean target it isn''t - clean > > should remove leftovers from earlier builds even if there was an > > intermediate reconfigure. > > Yes, I think so too. > > > > For Xen on ARM, the makefile targets build, clean and distclean will failed. > > > > If they fail, this will need fixing elsewhere then. > > Part of the issue is that there are targets which are simply not ported > to ARM and therefore are missing bits of infrastructure , e.g. mini-os > where one if the clean failures is lack of > extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk. > > However I think it is wrong to tie the clean/distclean of these into the > configurey selection mechanism, i.e. mini-os should know that it only > support x86 (for the minute) and DTRT when called for ARM (which is > likely to be nothing much). Perhaps a stub > extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk is the answer? > > The other case is the kernel distclean, which fails with > buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common:32: buildconfigs/src.: No such file or directory > but that seems to fail on x86 too. Having disabled it by default so long > ago perhaps the time has come to simply remove this stuff? I don''t know > if anyone is still using it -- the test system perhaps? > > Or it could be fixed with the below, I think. > > Ian. > > 8<--------------------- > > build: fix kernel build rules. > > Rename mk.linux-2.6-common to common.linux-2.6 so that it does not get > included in the ALLKERNELS logic. > > Specify XEN_LINUX_SOURCE for linux-2.6-native, looking at 414614d84e67 > and todays linux-2.6-xen.mk I am guessing that hg-clone of the 2.6.18 > tree is the expected method. To be honest I didn''t even try it... > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> > --- > NB git diff -M style diff, includes the rename... > > .../{mk.linux-2.6-common => common.linux-2.6} | 0 > buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 | 2 +- > buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native | 3 ++- > buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops | 2 +- > buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest | 2 +- > buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen | 2 +- > 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)Ahem.... 8<---------------- diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common b/buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 similarity index 100% rename from buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common rename to buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 index 6b8d989..6523afb 100644 --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 @@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_CONFIG_UPDATE := buildconfigs/enable-xen-config EXTRAVERSION ? -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native index c7c0949..6e2a77b 100644 --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ EXTRAVERSION = -native IMAGE_TARGET = bzImage INSTALL_BOOT_PATH = $(DESTDIR)/boot +LINUX_VER ?= 2.6.18 +XEN_LINUX_SOURCE ?= hg-clone -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops index 59cae79..9a11c7d 100644 --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_GIT_REMOTEBRANCH ?= xen/stable-2.6.32.x EXTRAVERSION ? -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest index 2a0b9af..158dda0 100644 --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_GIT_REMOTEBRANCH ?= auto-latest EXTRAVERSION ? -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen index 8594b55..b1facb6 100644 --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen @@ -3,4 +3,4 @@ LINUX_VER ?= 2.6.18 XEN_LINUX_SOURCE ?= hg-clone -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6
Julien Grall
2013-May-03 10:52 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On 05/03/2013 10:53 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 09:43 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 08:15 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 03.05.13 at 01:17, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> The commit 3378685 "Add conditional build of subsystems to configure.ac" >>>> allows the user to disable/enable some components of Xen. After this commit >>>> some targets are still called on every subsystems. >>> >>> For build this is correct to do, but for any clean target it isn''t - clean >>> should remove leftovers from earlier builds even if there was an >>> intermediate reconfigure. >> >> Yes, I think so too. >> >>>> For Xen on ARM, the makefile targets build, clean and distclean will failed. >>> >>> If they fail, this will need fixing elsewhere then. >> >> Part of the issue is that there are targets which are simply not ported >> to ARM and therefore are missing bits of infrastructure , e.g. mini-os >> where one if the clean failures is lack of >> extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk. >> >> However I think it is wrong to tie the clean/distclean of these into the >> configurey selection mechanism, i.e. mini-os should know that it only >> support x86 (for the minute) and DTRT when called for ARM (which is >> likely to be nothing much). Perhaps a stub >> extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk is the answer? >> >> The other case is the kernel distclean, which fails with >> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common:32: buildconfigs/src.: No such file or directory >> but that seems to fail on x86 too. Having disabled it by default so long >> ago perhaps the time has come to simply remove this stuff? I don''t know >> if anyone is still using it -- the test system perhaps? >> >> Or it could be fixed with the below, I think. >> >> Ian. >> >> 8<--------------------- >> >> build: fix kernel build rules. >> >> Rename mk.linux-2.6-common to common.linux-2.6 so that it does not get >> included in the ALLKERNELS logic. >> >> Specify XEN_LINUX_SOURCE for linux-2.6-native, looking at 414614d84e67 >> and todays linux-2.6-xen.mk I am guessing that hg-clone of the 2.6.18 >> tree is the expected method. To be honest I didn''t even try it... >> >> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> >> --- >> NB git diff -M style diff, includes the rename... >> >> .../{mk.linux-2.6-common => common.linux-2.6} | 0 >> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 | 2 +- >> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native | 3 ++- >> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops | 2 +- >> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest | 2 +- >> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen | 2 +- >> 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Ahem.... > > 8<---------------- > > diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common b/buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 > similarity index 100% > rename from buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common > rename to buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 > diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 > index 6b8d989..6523afb 100644 > --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 > +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 > @@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_CONFIG_UPDATE := buildconfigs/enable-xen-config > > EXTRAVERSION ?> > -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common > +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 > diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native > index c7c0949..6e2a77b 100644 > --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native > +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native > @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ > EXTRAVERSION = -native > IMAGE_TARGET = bzImage > INSTALL_BOOT_PATH = $(DESTDIR)/boot > +LINUX_VER ?= 2.6.18 > +XEN_LINUX_SOURCE ?= hg-clone > > -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common > +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 > diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops > index 59cae79..9a11c7d 100644 > --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops > +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops > @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_GIT_REMOTEBRANCH ?= xen/stable-2.6.32.x > > EXTRAVERSION ?> > -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common > +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 > diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest > index 2a0b9af..158dda0 100644 > --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest > +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest > @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_GIT_REMOTEBRANCH ?= auto-latest > > EXTRAVERSION ?> > -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common > +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 > diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen > index 8594b55..b1facb6 100644 > --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen > +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen > @@ -3,4 +3,4 @@ LINUX_VER ?= 2.6.18 > > XEN_LINUX_SOURCE ?= hg-clone > > -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common > +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6Hum in fact, it seems the build target doesn''t work because make[3]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/arch/arm'' gzip -f -9 < /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen > /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen.gz.new mv /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen.gz.new /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen.gz make[2]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen'' make[1]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen'' make -C tools build make[1]: Entering directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/tools'' make[1]: *** No rule to make target `build''. Stop. make[1]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/tools'' make: *** [build] Error 2 The target build is missing in tools build. So I guess nobody use it now. Is it possible to remove this target? -- Julien
Andrew Cooper
2013-May-03 11:13 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On 03/05/2013 11:52, Julien Grall wrote:> On 05/03/2013 10:53 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 09:43 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Fri, 2013-05-03 at 08:15 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 03.05.13 at 01:17, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> The commit 3378685 "Add conditional build of subsystems to configure.ac" >>>>> allows the user to disable/enable some components of Xen. After this commit >>>>> some targets are still called on every subsystems. >>>> For build this is correct to do, but for any clean target it isn''t - clean >>>> should remove leftovers from earlier builds even if there was an >>>> intermediate reconfigure. >>> Yes, I think so too. >>> >>>>> For Xen on ARM, the makefile targets build, clean and distclean will failed. >>>> If they fail, this will need fixing elsewhere then. >>> Part of the issue is that there are targets which are simply not ported >>> to ARM and therefore are missing bits of infrastructure , e.g. mini-os >>> where one if the clean failures is lack of >>> extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk. >>> >>> However I think it is wrong to tie the clean/distclean of these into the >>> configurey selection mechanism, i.e. mini-os should know that it only >>> support x86 (for the minute) and DTRT when called for ARM (which is >>> likely to be nothing much). Perhaps a stub >>> extras/mini-os/arch/arm/arch.mk is the answer? >>> >>> The other case is the kernel distclean, which fails with >>> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common:32: buildconfigs/src.: No such file or directory >>> but that seems to fail on x86 too. Having disabled it by default so long >>> ago perhaps the time has come to simply remove this stuff? I don''t know >>> if anyone is still using it -- the test system perhaps? >>> >>> Or it could be fixed with the below, I think. >>> >>> Ian. >>> >>> 8<--------------------- >>> >>> build: fix kernel build rules. >>> >>> Rename mk.linux-2.6-common to common.linux-2.6 so that it does not get >>> included in the ALLKERNELS logic. >>> >>> Specify XEN_LINUX_SOURCE for linux-2.6-native, looking at 414614d84e67 >>> and todays linux-2.6-xen.mk I am guessing that hg-clone of the 2.6.18 >>> tree is the expected method. To be honest I didn''t even try it... >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> >>> --- >>> NB git diff -M style diff, includes the rename... >>> >>> .../{mk.linux-2.6-common => common.linux-2.6} | 0 >>> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 | 2 +- >>> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native | 3 ++- >>> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops | 2 +- >>> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest | 2 +- >>> buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen | 2 +- >>> 6 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> Ahem.... >> >> 8<---------------- >> >> diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common b/buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 >> similarity index 100% >> rename from buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common >> rename to buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 >> diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 >> index 6b8d989..6523afb 100644 >> --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 >> +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6 >> @@ -7,4 +7,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_CONFIG_UPDATE := buildconfigs/enable-xen-config >> >> EXTRAVERSION ?>> >> -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common >> +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 >> diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native >> index c7c0949..6e2a77b 100644 >> --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native >> +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-native >> @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ >> EXTRAVERSION = -native >> IMAGE_TARGET = bzImage >> INSTALL_BOOT_PATH = $(DESTDIR)/boot >> +LINUX_VER ?= 2.6.18 >> +XEN_LINUX_SOURCE ?= hg-clone >> >> -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common >> +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 >> diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops >> index 59cae79..9a11c7d 100644 >> --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops >> +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-pvops >> @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_GIT_REMOTEBRANCH ?= xen/stable-2.6.32.x >> >> EXTRAVERSION ?>> >> -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common >> +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 >> diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest >> index 2a0b9af..158dda0 100644 >> --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest >> +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-tip-latest >> @@ -14,4 +14,4 @@ XEN_LINUX_GIT_REMOTEBRANCH ?= auto-latest >> >> EXTRAVERSION ?>> >> -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common >> +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 >> diff --git a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen >> index 8594b55..b1facb6 100644 >> --- a/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen >> +++ b/buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-xen >> @@ -3,4 +3,4 @@ LINUX_VER ?= 2.6.18 >> >> XEN_LINUX_SOURCE ?= hg-clone >> >> -include buildconfigs/mk.linux-2.6-common >> +include buildconfigs/common.linux-2.6 > > Hum in fact, it seems the build target doesn''t work because > > make[3]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/arch/arm'' > gzip -f -9 < /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen > /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen.gz.new > mv /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen.gz.new /local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen/xen.gz > make[2]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen'' > make[1]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/xen'' > make -C tools build > make[1]: Entering directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/tools'' > make[1]: *** No rule to make target `build''. Stop. > make[1]: Leaving directory `/local/scratch/julieng/xen-unstable/tools'' > make: *** [build] Error 2 > > The target build is missing in tools build. So I guess nobody use it now. > Is it possible to remove this target? >I did attempt to fix this before with http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html Please allow this to constitute a "ping" regarding the patch on that email. ~Andrew
Ian Jackson
2013-May-07 17:27 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional
build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"):> I did attempt to fix this before with
> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html
>
> Please allow this to constitute a "ping" regarding the patch on
that email.
We had a little thread about this then.
At the time I thought we also needed this patch, before yours:
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html
It looks from that thread like I was hoping for an ack from someone
else on my patch.
These look like bugfixes to me. George, are they OK for 4.3 ?
Ian.
George Dunlap
2013-May-08 10:22 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"): >> I did attempt to fix this before with >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html >> >> Please allow this to constitute a "ping" regarding the patch on that email. > > We had a little thread about this then. > > At the time I thought we also needed this patch, before yours: > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html > > It looks from that thread like I was hoping for an ack from someone > else on my patch. > > These look like bugfixes to me. George, are they OK for 4.3 ?Hrm, I''m not terribly happy about this kind of change this late in the day, but I think overall it''s best to fix this. Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Ian Campbell
2013-May-08 11:18 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 11:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"): > >> I did attempt to fix this before with > >> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html > >> > >> Please allow this to constitute a "ping" regarding the patch on that email. > > > > We had a little thread about this then. > > > > At the time I thought we also needed this patch, before yours: > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html > > > > It looks from that thread like I was hoping for an ack from someone > > else on my patch. > > > > These look like bugfixes to me. George, are they OK for 4.3 ? > > Hrm, I''m not terribly happy about this kind of change this late in the > day, but I think overall it''s best to fix this. > > Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>This old mail is long gone from my INBOX, can I get either a resend or a set of message ids which I can track down? Also can you both (Ian and George) clarify whether your acks apply to Andrew''s series (or single patch?) from last year or to Julien''s patch or to both. Ian.
Andrew Cooper
2013-May-08 12:14 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On 08/05/13 12:18, Ian Campbell wrote:> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 11:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >>> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"): >>>> I did attempt to fix this before with >>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html >>>> >>>> Please allow this to constitute a "ping" regarding the patch on that email. >>> We had a little thread about this then. >>> >>> At the time I thought we also needed this patch, before yours: >>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html >>> >>> It looks from that thread like I was hoping for an ack from someone >>> else on my patch. >>> >>> These look like bugfixes to me. George, are they OK for 4.3 ? >> Hrm, I''m not terribly happy about this kind of change this late in the >> day, but I think overall it''s best to fix this. >> >> Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> > This old mail is long gone from my INBOX, can I get either a resend or a > set of message ids which I can track down? > > Also can you both (Ian and George) clarify whether your acks apply to > Andrew''s series (or single patch?) from last year or to Julien''s patch > or to both.Single patch, as far as this is concerned. ~Andrew> > Ian. >
Ian Jackson
2013-May-08 12:51 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional
build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"):> On 08/05/13 12:18, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 11:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ian Jackson
<Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> >>> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build:
Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"):
> >>>> I did attempt to fix this before with
> >>>>
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html
...> >>> At the time I thought we also needed this patch, before yours:
> >>>
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html
> >>>
> >>> It looks from that thread like I was hoping for an ack from
someone
> >>> else on my patch.
> >>>
> >>> These look like bugfixes to me. George, are they OK for 4.3 ?
> >> Hrm, I''m not terribly happy about this kind of change
this late in the
> >> day, but I think overall it''s best to fix this.
Perhaps I don''t understand the freeze policy. I thought we were still
accepting bugfixes ? I guess at some point we''ll start accepting
fixes only for release-critical bugs, but surely not yet ?
> >> Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> > This old mail is long gone from my INBOX, can I get either a resend or
a
> > set of message ids which I can track down?
> >
> > Also can you both (Ian and George) clarify whether your acks apply to
> > Andrew''s series (or single patch?) from last year or to
Julien''s patch
> > or to both.
>
> Single patch, as far as this is concerned.
I meant exactly the two patches in these emails
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html
in that order.
Ian.
George Dunlap
2013-May-08 12:59 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On 08/05/13 13:51, Ian Jackson wrote:> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"): >> On 08/05/13 12:18, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 11:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"): >>>>>> I did attempt to fix this before with >>>>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html > ... >>>>> At the time I thought we also needed this patch, before yours: >>>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html >>>>> >>>>> It looks from that thread like I was hoping for an ack from someone >>>>> else on my patch. >>>>> >>>>> These look like bugfixes to me. George, are they OK for 4.3 ? >>>> Hrm, I''m not terribly happy about this kind of change this late in the >>>> day, but I think overall it''s best to fix this. > Perhaps I don''t understand the freeze policy. I thought we were still > accepting bugfixes ? I guess at some point we''ll start accepting > fixes only for release-critical bugs, but surely not yet ?I haven''t been using a strict rule; I''ve been attempting to approach each request from a risk/benefits perspective. In this case, the change doesn''t look *terribly* risky; but it does seem like there may be a bit of risk, and overall the benefit didn''t seem to be terribly large either. On balance, in my judgement it comes pretty close to the line. It''s quite possible I''m judging inaccurately in this case -- either overestimating the risk, or underestimating the benefit. But it''s probably better to have a discussion about that in a case where we actually disagree about the conclusion. :-) -George
Ian Campbell
2013-May-10 14:02 UTC
Re: [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 13:14 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:> On 08/05/13 12:18, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 11:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >>> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: Conditional build/clean/distclean targets on subsystems"): > >>>> I did attempt to fix this before with > >>>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00134.html > >>>> > >>>> Please allow this to constitute a "ping" regarding the patch on that email. > >>> We had a little thread about this then. > >>> > >>> At the time I thought we also needed this patch, before yours: > >>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2012-08/msg00870.html > >>> > >>> It looks from that thread like I was hoping for an ack from someone > >>> else on my patch. > >>> > >>> These look like bugfixes to me. George, are they OK for 4.3 ? > >> Hrm, I''m not terribly happy about this kind of change this late in the > >> day, but I think overall it''s best to fix this. > >> > >> Acked-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> > > This old mail is long gone from my INBOX, can I get either a resend or a > > set of message ids which I can track down? > > > > Also can you both (Ian and George) clarify whether your acks apply to > > Andrew''s series (or single patch?) from last year or to Julien''s patch > > or to both. > > Single patch, as far as this is concerned.Are you planning to resend as requested? (or did I miss it?) AIUI Ians c-stubdom patch is no longer needed since stubdom got configure''d up. Ian.