Message ID | cover.1694717278.git.sanastasio@raptorengineering.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | ppc: Enable full Xen build | expand |
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). Jan
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. > Jan Thanks, Shawn
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 6:27 PM Shawn Anastasio <sanastasio@raptorengineering.com> 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.) -George
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:59 AM George Dunlap <george.dunlap@cloud.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 6:27 PM Shawn Anastasio > <sanastasio@raptorengineering.com> 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. -George
On 20.09.2023 13:04, George Dunlap wrote: > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:59 AM George Dunlap <george.dunlap@cloud.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 6:27 PM Shawn Anastasio >> <sanastasio@raptorengineering.com> 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