| Message ID | 20190516133735.18883-2-volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/2] makefile: add support for *_defconfig targets | expand |
Hi,
First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This help for
threading and also a place to commend on general feedback.
Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the correct
maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you haven't CCed all
of them.
On 16/05/2019 14:37, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able
> to configure minimal XEN image with
I am afraid this is not correct. tiny64 will not be able to generate a minimal
config to boot on any platform supported by Xen.
It is meant to be used as a base for tailoring your platform where all the
options are turned off by default.
So I think offering a direct access is likely going to be misused in most of the
cases without proper documentation.
Cheers,
Hi Julien, Julien Grall writes: > Hi, > > First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This > help for threading and also a place to commend on general feedback. Oh, okay. That was quite simple change and I didn't wanted to spam with extra emails. I will include cover letter next time. > Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the > correct maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you > haven't CCed all of them. Problem is that I used this script: $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org I was quite surprised by result myself. Honestly, I wanted to CC only you and Stefano, but decided to play by the rules. Also, add_maintainers.pl just ignores this patch at all: % scripts/add_maintainers.pl -v 2 -d defconfig_v2 Processing: v2-0001-makefile-add-support-for-_defconfig-targets.patch Processing: v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? > > On 16/05/2019 14:37, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >> to configure minimal XEN image with > > I am afraid this is not correct. tiny64 will not be able to generate a > minimal config to boot on any platform supported by Xen. > > It is meant to be used as a base for tailoring your platform where all > the options are turned off by default. > > So I think offering a direct access is likely going to be misused in > most of the cases without proper documentation. In the original commit message Stefano suggested to use olddefconfig: " Add a tiny kconfig configuration. Enabled only the credit scheduler. It only carries non-default options (use make menuconfig or make olddefconfig to produce a complete .config file). " I don't see any significant difference between # cp tiny64.conf .config && make olddefconfig and # make tiny64_defconfig Anyways, it is up to you to accept or decline this particular patch. I mostly interested in the first patch in the series, because our build system depends on it. This very patch I sent out only because I wanted to tidy up things a bit. But if you are saying that it is intended to store minimal config in this way, I'm okay with it. -- Best regards,Volodymyr Babchuk
Hi, On 20/05/2019 14:41, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: > Julien Grall writes: > >> Hi, >> >> First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This >> help for threading and also a place to commend on general feedback. > Oh, okay. That was quite simple change and I didn't wanted to spam with > extra emails. I will include cover letter next time. > >> Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the >> correct maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you >> haven't CCed all of them. > Problem is that I used this script: > > $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch -f is to be used on actual file in the source tree. So the result below makes sense. For actual patch, you have to drop the -f. > Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> > George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> > Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> > Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> > Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> > Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> > Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> > Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > > I was quite surprised by result myself. Honestly, I wanted to CC only > you and Stefano, but decided to play by the rules. > > > Also, add_maintainers.pl just ignores this patch at all: > > % scripts/add_maintainers.pl -v 2 -d defconfig_v2 > Processing: v2-0001-makefile-add-support-for-_defconfig-targets.patch > Processing: v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch > ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? I have just tried it and can't find the same error. Could you provide more details? Such as where to do call from the exact content of each patches... > >> >> On 16/05/2019 14:37, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>> to configure minimal XEN image with >> >> I am afraid this is not correct. tiny64 will not be able to generate a >> minimal config to boot on any platform supported by Xen. >> >> It is meant to be used as a base for tailoring your platform where all >> the options are turned off by default. >> >> So I think offering a direct access is likely going to be misused in >> most of the cases without proper documentation. > > In the original commit message Stefano suggested to use olddefconfig: > > " Add a tiny kconfig configuration. Enabled only the credit scheduler. > It only carries non-default options (use make menuconfig or make > olddefconfig to produce a complete .config file). " > > I don't see any significant difference between Did you actually try the two approach and see how they differ? > > # cp tiny64.conf .config && make olddefconfig This one will ask you details on the configuration you want while... > > and > > # make tiny64_defconfig ... this one will hide the questions. > > Anyways, it is up to you to accept or decline this particular patch. I > mostly interested in the first patch in the series, because our build > system depends on it. This very patch I sent out only because I wanted > to tidy up things a bit. But if you are saying that it is intended to > store minimal config in this way, I'm okay with it. The point of review is to discuss on the approach and find a common agreement. If you read my previous e-mail, I didn't completely reject the approach in my previous e-mail. I pointed out that the user may be misled of the name and hence documentation would be useful. But Cheers,
Julien Grall writes: > Hi, > > On 20/05/2019 14:41, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> Julien Grall writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This >>> help for threading and also a place to commend on general feedback. >> Oh, okay. That was quite simple change and I didn't wanted to spam with >> extra emails. I will include cover letter next time. >> >>> Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the >>> correct maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you >>> haven't CCed all of them. >> Problem is that I used this script: >> >> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch > > -f is to be used on actual file in the source tree. So the result > below makes sense. For actual patch, you have to drop the -f. Ah, I see. Without -f I'm getting the same message as with add-maintainers.pl: % ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? [...] >> >> % scripts/add_maintainers.pl -v 2 -d defconfig_v2 >> Processing: v2-0001-makefile-add-support-for-_defconfig-targets.patch >> Processing: v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch >> ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? > > I have just tried it and can't find the same error. Could you provide > more details? Such as where to do call from the exact content of each > patches... My basic flow: % git format-patch -v2 -2 -o defconfig_v2 % scripts/add_maintainers.pl -v 2 -d defconfig_v2 Processing: v2-0001-makefile-add-support-for-_defconfig-targets.patch Processing: v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? Then perform: git send-email -to xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org defconfig_v2/v2-*.patch HEAD (prior to my patches) is at 278c64519c661c851d37e2a929f006fb8a1dcd01 git version 2.21.0 Contents of the patch is the exactly the same as in my original email. You can find both patches at [1]. >> >>> >>> On 16/05/2019 14:37, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>> >>> I am afraid this is not correct. tiny64 will not be able to generate a >>> minimal config to boot on any platform supported by Xen. >>> >>> It is meant to be used as a base for tailoring your platform where all >>> the options are turned off by default. >>> >>> So I think offering a direct access is likely going to be misused in >>> most of the cases without proper documentation. >> >> In the original commit message Stefano suggested to use olddefconfig: >> >> " Add a tiny kconfig configuration. Enabled only the credit scheduler. >> It only carries non-default options (use make menuconfig or make >> olddefconfig to produce a complete .config file). " >> >> I don't see any significant difference between > > Did you actually try the two approach and see how they differ? Yes. I did the following: % cp arch/arm/configs/tiny64_defconfig .config % make olddefconfig make -f /home/lorc/work/xen/xen/tools/kconfig/Makefile.kconfig ARCH=arm64 SRCARCH=arm HOSTCC="gcc" HOSTCXX="g++" olddefconfig make[1]: Entering directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.conf.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -c -o tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/conf.c gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.zconf.tab.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -Itools/kconfig -c -o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.c gcc -o tools/kconfig/conf tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o tools/kconfig/conf -s --olddefconfig Kconfig make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' And % make tiny64_defconfig make -f /home/lorc/work/xen/xen/tools/kconfig/Makefile.kconfig ARCH=arm64 SRCARCH=arm HOSTCC="gcc" HOSTCXX="g++" tiny64_defconfig make[1]: Entering directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.conf.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -c -o tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/conf.c gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.zconf.tab.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -Itools/kconfig -c -o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.c gcc -o tools/kconfig/conf tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' Then I compared both .config files and found no difference at all: % diff -u .config1 .config2 (displayed nothing) >> >> # cp tiny64.conf .config && make olddefconfig > > This one will ask you details on the configuration you want while... But it does not, while "make oldconfig" does. Are you sure you are not confusing oldconfig and olddefconfig targets? >> >> and >> >> # make tiny64_defconfig > > ... this one will hide the questions. > >> >> Anyways, it is up to you to accept or decline this particular patch. I >> mostly interested in the first patch in the series, because our build >> system depends on it. This very patch I sent out only because I wanted >> to tidy up things a bit. But if you are saying that it is intended to >> store minimal config in this way, I'm okay with it. > > The point of review is to discuss on the approach and find a common agreement. > > If you read my previous e-mail, I didn't completely reject the > approach in my previous e-mail. I pointed out that the user may be > misled of the name and hence documentation would be useful. I'm okay with this. Any ideas how to document it? [1] https://github.com/lorc/xen/commits/defconfig_v2
Hi Volodymyr, Sorry for the late reply. On 5/20/19 3:57 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: > > Julien Grall writes: > >> Hi, >> >> On 20/05/2019 14:41, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>> Julien Grall writes: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This >>>> help for threading and also a place to commend on general feedback. >>> Oh, okay. That was quite simple change and I didn't wanted to spam with >>> extra emails. I will include cover letter next time. >>> >>>> Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the >>>> correct maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you >>>> haven't CCed all of them. >>> Problem is that I used this script: >>> >>> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch >> >> -f is to be used on actual file in the source tree. So the result >> below makes sense. For actual patch, you have to drop the -f. > Ah, I see. Without -f I'm getting the same message as with > add-maintainers.pl: > > % ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch > ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? > > [...] > >>> >>> % scripts/add_maintainers.pl -v 2 -d defconfig_v2 >>> Processing: v2-0001-makefile-add-support-for-_defconfig-targets.patch >>> Processing: v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch >>> ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? >> >> I have just tried it and can't find the same error. Could you provide >> more details? Such as where to do call from the exact content of each >> patches... > > My basic flow: > > % git format-patch -v2 -2 -o defconfig_v2 > % scripts/add_maintainers.pl -v 2 -d defconfig_v2 > Processing: v2-0001-makefile-add-support-for-_defconfig-targets.patch > Processing: v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch > ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl: file 'defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch' doesn't appear to be a patch. Add -f to options? > Then perform: > git send-email -to xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org defconfig_v2/v2-*.patch > > > HEAD (prior to my patches) is at > 278c64519c661c851d37e2a929f006fb8a1dcd01 > > git version 2.21.0 > > Contents of the patch is the exactly the same as in my original > email. You can find both patches at [1]. It looks like the problem is because the second patch only contains renaming. Linux recently fixed it with the following commit: 0455c74788fd "get_maintainer: improve patch recognition" I guess we need to port the patch in Xen. Volodymyr, would you mind to send a patch for it? > >>> >>>> >>>> On 16/05/2019 14:37, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>>> >>>> I am afraid this is not correct. tiny64 will not be able to generate a >>>> minimal config to boot on any platform supported by Xen. >>>> >>>> It is meant to be used as a base for tailoring your platform where all >>>> the options are turned off by default. >>>> >>>> So I think offering a direct access is likely going to be misused in >>>> most of the cases without proper documentation. >>> >>> In the original commit message Stefano suggested to use olddefconfig: >>> >>> " Add a tiny kconfig configuration. Enabled only the credit scheduler. >>> It only carries non-default options (use make menuconfig or make >>> olddefconfig to produce a complete .config file). " >>> >>> I don't see any significant difference between >> >> Did you actually try the two approach and see how they differ? > > Yes. I did the following: > > % cp arch/arm/configs/tiny64_defconfig .config > % make olddefconfig > make -f /home/lorc/work/xen/xen/tools/kconfig/Makefile.kconfig ARCH=arm64 SRCARCH=arm HOSTCC="gcc" HOSTCXX="g++" olddefconfig > make[1]: Entering directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' > gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.conf.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -c -o tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/conf.c > gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.zconf.tab.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -Itools/kconfig -c -o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.c > gcc -o tools/kconfig/conf tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o > tools/kconfig/conf -s --olddefconfig Kconfig > make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' > > And > > % make tiny64_defconfig > make -f /home/lorc/work/xen/xen/tools/kconfig/Makefile.kconfig ARCH=arm64 SRCARCH=arm HOSTCC="gcc" HOSTCXX="g++" tiny64_defconfig > make[1]: Entering directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' > gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.conf.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -c -o tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/conf.c > gcc -Wp,-MD,tools/kconfig/.zconf.tab.o.d -D_GNU_SOURCE -DCURSES_LOC="<ncurses.h>" -DNCURSES_WIDECHAR=1 -DLOCALE -Itools/kconfig -c -o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.c > gcc -o tools/kconfig/conf tools/kconfig/conf.o tools/kconfig/zconf.tab.o > make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/lorc/work/xen/xen' > > Then I compared both .config files and found no difference at all: > > % diff -u .config1 .config2 > (displayed nothing) > >>> >>> # cp tiny64.conf .config && make olddefconfig >> >> This one will ask you details on the configuration you want while... > > But it does not, while "make oldconfig" does. Are you sure you are not > confusing oldconfig and olddefconfig targets? I am confusing both :(. Sorry for the noise. > >>> >>> and >>> >>> # make tiny64_defconfig >> >> ... this one will hide the questions. >> >>> >>> Anyways, it is up to you to accept or decline this particular patch. I >>> mostly interested in the first patch in the series, because our build >>> system depends on it. This very patch I sent out only because I wanted >>> to tidy up things a bit. But if you are saying that it is intended to >>> store minimal config in this way, I'm okay with it. >> >> The point of review is to discuss on the approach and find a common agreement. >> >> If you read my previous e-mail, I didn't completely reject the >> approach in my previous e-mail. I pointed out that the user may be >> misled of the name and hence documentation would be useful. > > I'm okay with this. Any ideas how to document it? We don't seem to have a place today where we document the defconfig. I am thinking to put that in docs/misc/arm. I would document the purpose of each config. The documentation could be in a separate patch. Cheers, > > [1] https://github.com/lorc/xen/commits/defconfig_v2 >
Hi Julien, Julien Grall writes: > Hi Volodymyr, > > Sorry for the late reply. It's okay, no worries. > On 5/20/19 3:57 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >> >> Julien Grall writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 20/05/2019 14:41, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>> Julien Grall writes: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This >>>>> help for threading and also a place to commend on general feedback. >>>> Oh, okay. That was quite simple change and I didn't wanted to spam with >>>> extra emails. I will include cover letter next time. >>>> >>>>> Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the >>>>> correct maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you >>>>> haven't CCed all of them. >>>> Problem is that I used this script: >>>> >>>> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch [...] >> >> Contents of the patch is the exactly the same as in my original >> email. You can find both patches at [1]. > > It looks like the problem is because the second patch only contains > renaming. Linux recently fixed it with the following commit: > > 0455c74788fd "get_maintainer: improve patch recognition" > > I guess we need to port the patch in Xen. Volodymyr, would you mind to > send a patch for it? Yes, I have sent it. It is the first time I'm sending ported patches. I hope, I did it in the right way :) [...] >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> # make tiny64_defconfig >>> >>> ... this one will hide the questions. >>> >>>> >>>> Anyways, it is up to you to accept or decline this particular patch. I >>>> mostly interested in the first patch in the series, because our build >>>> system depends on it. This very patch I sent out only because I wanted >>>> to tidy up things a bit. But if you are saying that it is intended to >>>> store minimal config in this way, I'm okay with it. >>> >>> The point of review is to discuss on the approach and find a common agreement. >>> >>> If you read my previous e-mail, I didn't completely reject the >>> approach in my previous e-mail. I pointed out that the user may be >>> misled of the name and hence documentation would be useful. >> >> I'm okay with this. Any ideas how to document it? > > We don't seem to have a place today where we document the defconfig. I > am thinking to put that in docs/misc/arm. > > I would document the purpose of each config. The documentation could > be in a separate patch. Okay. Will it be okay, if I'll send it as a separate patch? You can commit all three patches in a row. Or should I sent another version with all three patches?
Hi Volodymyr, On 29/05/2019 12:40, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>> On 20/05/2019 14:41, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote: >>>>> Julien Grall writes: >>>> If you read my previous e-mail, I didn't completely reject the >>>> approach in my previous e-mail. I pointed out that the user may be >>>> misled of the name and hence documentation would be useful. >>> >>> I'm okay with this. Any ideas how to document it? >> >> We don't seem to have a place today where we document the defconfig. I >> am thinking to put that in docs/misc/arm. >> >> I would document the purpose of each config. The documentation could >> be in a separate patch. > Okay. Will it be okay, if I'll send it as a separate patch? You can > commit all three patches in a row. Or should I sent another version with > all three patches? Please resend the series. Cheers,
Julien, >>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: > As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able > to configure minimal XEN image with > > make tiny64_defconfig > > command. > > Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should drop these two from my list of pending patches? Jan
Hi Jan, On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: > Julien, > >>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >> to configure minimal XEN image with >> >> make tiny64_defconfig >> >> command. >> >> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> > > you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense > without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should > drop these two from my list of pending patches? Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that documentation patch is going to be sent. You can consider this as an acked: Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. Cheers,
Hi, On 6/5/19 5:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >> Julien, >> >>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>> >>> make tiny64_defconfig >>> >>> command. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >> >> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >> drop these two from my list of pending patches? > > Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a > separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that > documentation patch is going to be sent. > > You can consider this as an acked: > > Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. I was about to apply the two patches, but I don't seem to be able to apply it because some lines contains =20. AFAICT, it is in replacement of "space" in certain case. This is similar to the OP-TEE series. Volodymyr, can you sort out your e-mail configuration? Andrii seems to send patches from a gmail, not sure if it is because of some issues with his EPAM e-mail address... You may want to talk with him. Cheers,
>>> On 10.06.19 at 22:03, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/5/19 5:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > > On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Julien, >>> >>>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>>> >>>> make tiny64_defconfig >>>> >>>> command. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >>> >>> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >>> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >>> drop these two from my list of pending patches? >> >> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >> documentation patch is going to be sent. >> >> You can consider this as an acked: >> >> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. > > I was about to apply the two patches, but I don't seem to be able to > apply it because some lines contains =20. AFAICT, it is in replacement > of "space" in certain case. Well, independent of any formatting issues you ought to have trouble applying them since I did so already. Jan
Hi Jan, On 6/11/19 7:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 10.06.19 at 22:03, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 6/5/19 5:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >> > On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> Julien, >>>> >>>>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>>>> >>>>> make tiny64_defconfig >>>>> >>>>> command. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >>>> >>>> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >>>> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >>>> drop these two from my list of pending patches? >>> >>> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >>> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >>> documentation patch is going to be sent. >>> >>> You can consider this as an acked: >>> >>> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. >> >> I was about to apply the two patches, but I don't seem to be able to >> apply it because some lines contains =20. AFAICT, it is in replacement >> of "space" in certain case. > > Well, independent of any formatting issues you ought to have trouble > applying them since I did so already. Hmm, I missed that. Sorry for noise. Out of interest, how did you manage to apply it with the =20 in the patch? Cheers,
>>> On 11.06.19 at 11:27, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On 6/11/19 7:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 10.06.19 at 22:03, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 6/5/19 5:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >>> > On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> Julien, >>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>>>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>>>>> >>>>>> make tiny64_defconfig >>>>>> >>>>>> command. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >>>>> >>>>> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >>>>> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >>>>> drop these two from my list of pending patches? >>>> >>>> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >>>> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >>>> documentation patch is going to be sent. >>>> >>>> You can consider this as an acked: >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. >>> >>> I was about to apply the two patches, but I don't seem to be able to >>> apply it because some lines contains =20. AFAICT, it is in replacement >>> of "space" in certain case. >> >> Well, independent of any formatting issues you ought to have trouble >> applying them since I did so already. > > Hmm, I missed that. Sorry for noise. > > Out of interest, how did you manage to apply it with the =20 in the patch? There are no =20 in the mail that I did receive. Jan
On 6/11/19 10:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 11.06.19 at 11:27, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Jan, >> >> On 6/11/19 7:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 10.06.19 at 22:03, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 6/5/19 5:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> > On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> Julien, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>>>>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>>>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>>>>>> >>>>>>> make tiny64_defconfig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> command. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >>>>>> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >>>>>> drop these two from my list of pending patches? >>>>> >>>>> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >>>>> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >>>>> documentation patch is going to be sent. >>>>> >>>>> You can consider this as an acked: >>>>> >>>>> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. >>>> >>>> I was about to apply the two patches, but I don't seem to be able to >>>> apply it because some lines contains =20. AFAICT, it is in replacement >>>> of "space" in certain case. >>> >>> Well, independent of any formatting issues you ought to have trouble >>> applying them since I did so already. >> >> Hmm, I missed that. Sorry for noise. >> >> Out of interest, how did you manage to apply it with the =20 in the patch? > > There are no =20 in the mail that I did receive. I think `git am` knows how to deal with those actually. -George
On 11/06/2019 10:41, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 11.06.19 at 11:27, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Jan, >> >> On 6/11/19 7:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 10.06.19 at 22:03, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 6/5/19 5:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >>>> > On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> Julien, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>>>>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>>>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>>>>>> >>>>>>> make tiny64_defconfig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> command. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >>>>>> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >>>>>> drop these two from my list of pending patches? >>>>> >>>>> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >>>>> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >>>>> documentation patch is going to be sent. >>>>> >>>>> You can consider this as an acked: >>>>> >>>>> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. >>>> >>>> I was about to apply the two patches, but I don't seem to be able to >>>> apply it because some lines contains =20. AFAICT, it is in replacement >>>> of "space" in certain case. >>> >>> Well, independent of any formatting issues you ought to have trouble >>> applying them since I did so already. >> >> Hmm, I missed that. Sorry for noise. >> >> Out of interest, how did you manage to apply it with the =20 in the patch? > > There are no =20 in the mail that I did receive. Sorry, I was talking about patch #1. Interestingly the Content-Type is different between the e-mail received from exchange (this is a direct copy) and gmail (this is received from xen-devel). The gmail version doesn't contain it, while the exchange version does... Hmmm... Cheers,
Hi George, On 11/06/2019 11:12, George Dunlap wrote: > On 6/11/19 10:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 11.06.19 at 11:27, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> On 6/11/19 7:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 10.06.19 at 22:03, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 6/5/19 5:01 PM, Julien Grall wrote: >>>>> > On 05/06/2019 16:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> Julien, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>>>>>>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> make tiny64_defconfig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> command. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >>>>>>> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >>>>>>> drop these two from my list of pending patches? >>>>>> >>>>>> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >>>>>> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >>>>>> documentation patch is going to be sent. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can consider this as an acked: >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> for the two patches. >>>>> >>>>> I was about to apply the two patches, but I don't seem to be able to >>>>> apply it because some lines contains =20. AFAICT, it is in replacement >>>>> of "space" in certain case. >>>> >>>> Well, independent of any formatting issues you ought to have trouble >>>> applying them since I did so already. >>> >>> Hmm, I missed that. Sorry for noise. >>> >>> Out of interest, how did you manage to apply it with the =20 in the patch? >> >> There are no =20 in the mail that I did receive. > > I think `git am` knows how to deal with those actually. Hrm. Yes, sorry for the noise. Cheers,
Hello Julien, Jan, Julien Grall writes: >>>>> On 16.05.19 at 15:37, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >>> As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able >>> to configure minimal XEN image with >>> >>> make tiny64_defconfig >>> >>> command. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> >> >> you had objections here, and the first patch makes little sense >> without the 2nd. May I ask what the verdict is, i.e. whether I should >> drop these two from my list of pending patches? > > Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a > separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that > documentation patch is going to be sent. Yes, sorry for the delay. I'm going to send resend the series soon. But I can see, that first two patches are already in the staging branch. Should I resend the whole series in this case? Or single patch with the missing documentation will be sufficient? And another, slightly related question: I'm not sure what to do with my patch to get_maintainer.pl script. Should I resend the new version? Jan had comments only to commit message... -- Best regards,Volodymyr Babchuk
>>> On 11.06.19 at 20:52, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: > Julien Grall writes: >> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >> documentation patch is going to be sent. > > Yes, sorry for the delay. I'm going to send resend the series soon. But > I can see, that first two patches are already in the staging branch. > Should I resend the whole series in this case? Or single patch with the > missing documentation will be sufficient? You should never send patches that have already been applied. > And another, slightly related question: I'm not sure what to do with my > patch to get_maintainer.pl script. Should I resend the new version? Jan > had comments only to commit message... Well, re-sending may make it easier, but first of all you need to get a maintainer to ack the patch. My Perl isn't good enough that I would feel qualified to give mine. Jan
Hi, On 6/12/19 8:44 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 11.06.19 at 20:52, <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com> wrote: >> Julien Grall writes: >>> Volodymyr was going to resend the series with documentation (as a >>> separate patch). But I would be happy to take #1 and #2 assuming that >>> documentation patch is going to be sent. >> >> Yes, sorry for the delay. I'm going to send resend the series soon. But >> I can see, that first two patches are already in the staging branch. >> Should I resend the whole series in this case? Or single patch with the >> missing documentation will be sufficient? > > You should never send patches that have already been applied. > >> And another, slightly related question: I'm not sure what to do with my >> patch to get_maintainer.pl script. Should I resend the new version? Jan >> had comments only to commit message... > > Well, re-sending may make it easier, but first of all you need to > get a maintainer to ack the patch. My Perl isn't good enough > that I would feel qualified to give mine. Volodymyr, please resend the patch with Jan's comments addressed. I had a brief looked today and the patch looks correct. I will have another look on the next version. Cheers,
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/configs/tiny64.conf b/xen/arch/arm/configs/tiny64_defconfig
similarity index 100%
rename from xen/arch/arm/configs/tiny64.conf
rename to xen/arch/arm/configs/tiny64_defconfig
As build system now supports *_defconfig rules it is good to be able to configure minimal XEN image with make tiny64_defconfig command. Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com> --- xen/arch/arm/configs/{tiny64.conf => tiny64_defconfig} | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename xen/arch/arm/configs/{tiny64.conf => tiny64_defconfig} (100%)