On 03/02/2018 09:25 AM, Laurent Vivier wrote: > On 28/02/2018 19:02, Wei Huang wrote: >> The x86 boot block header currently is generated with a shell script. >> To better support other CPUs (e.g. aarch64), we convert the script >> into Makefile. This allows us to 1) support cross-compilation easily, >> and 2) avoid creating a script file for every architecture. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Huang <w...@redhat.com> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjo...@redhat.com> >> --- >> tests/migration/Makefile | 36 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> tests/migration/rebuild-x86-bootblock.sh | 33 ----------------------------- >> tests/migration/x86-a-b-bootblock.h | 2 +- >> tests/migration/x86-a-b-bootblock.s | 5 ++--- >> 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 tests/migration/Makefile >> delete mode 100755 tests/migration/rebuild-x86-bootblock.sh >> >> diff --git a/tests/migration/Makefile b/tests/migration/Makefile >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000000..8fbedaa8b8 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/tests/migration/Makefile >> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ >> +# >> +# Copyright (c) 2016-2018 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates >> +# >> +# Authors: >> +# Dave Gilbert <dgilb...@redhat.com> >> +# >> +# This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU GPL, version 2 or later. >> +# See the COPYING file in the top-level directory. >> +# >> +export __note >> +override define __note >> +/* This file is automatically generated from >> + * tests/migration/$<, edit that and then run >> + * "make $@" inside tests/migration to update, >> + * and then remember to send both in your patch submission. >> + */ >> +endef >> + >> +all: x86-a-b-bootblock.h >> +# Dummy command so that make thinks it has done something >> + @true >> + >> +SRC_PATH=../.. >> +include $(SRC_PATH)/rules.mak > > does it work in not in-tree build?
Yes, I tried it with a out-of-tree build and it worked. More specifically, because .h file (e.g. x86-a-b-bootblock.h) is provided, this Makefile is disjoint from the main build system and it has to be invoked explicitly. So it won't be affected by out-of-tree build. > >> + >> +x86_64_cross_prefix := $(call find-cross-prefix,x86_64) >> + >> +x86-a-b-bootblock.h: x86-a-b-bootblock.s >> + $(x86_64_cross_prefix)as --32 -march=i486 $< -o x86.o >> + $(x86_64_cross_prefix)objcopy -O binary x86.o x86.boot >> + dd if=x86.boot of=x86.bootsect bs=256 count=2 skip=124 >> + echo "$$__note" > $@ >> + xxd -i x86.bootsect | sed -e 's/.*int.*//' >> $@ > > To be really in the spirit of a makefile, you should have a rule by target: > > x86.o: x86-a-b-bootblock.s > $(x86_64_cross_prefix)as --32 -march=i486 $< -o x86.o > > x86.boot: x86.o > $(x86_64_cross_prefix)objcopy -O binary x86.o x86.boot > > x86.bootsect: x86.boot > dd if=x86.boot of=x86.bootsect bs=256 count=2 skip=124 > > x86-a-b-bootblock.h: x86.bootsect > echo "$$__note" > header.tmp > xxd -i x86.bootsect | sed -e 's/.*int.*//' >> header.tmp > mv header.tmp $@ > It is cleaner, I agree. But it will make the Makefile quite bulky (remember that we have to do the same for aarch64 and others). > Thanks, > Laurent >
