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.coop...@citrix.com>
George Dunlap <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com>
Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>
Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>
Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org>
Tim Deegan <t...@xen.org>
Wei Liu <wei.l...@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
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
