mkpatches: against ref-linux or pristine? (Was: Error compiling with CONFIG_PROFILING (xenoprof))

["Michael Paesold" <mpaesold@gmx.at>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2006, at 12:28, Michael Paesold wrote:
>
>> "make mkpatches" creates diffs between vanilla+patches/linux-2.6.16 and 
>> xenified+patches/linux-2.6.16).
>
> I would have thought it would make more sense for it to diff against 
> vanilla/linux-2.6.16 (i.e., the pristine tree rather than the ref tree). 
> Most people are going to want an all-in-one patch to apply to a vanilla 
> kernel tree.

You are right, I also see no real value in having one xen patch + several 
extra patches to apply. It rather makes the process of patching more 
complicated. Although rpm helps me with the patching, I still have to 
manually review changes in patches/ everytime I rebase our own RPMs... 
resulting in this very thread. :-)

Does anyone see a use-case for not creating an all-in-one patch? On a second 
thought, a separate "make mkpatch" (or a more explicit target name) could 
provide an all-in-one patch without introducing transitioning problems for 
users of mkpatches.

Should I create a patch to implement that? (Seems rather trivial and 
suitable for my limited Makefile fu.)

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold