Re: [RFC v2] xen/arm: build: add missed dependency for head.S [and 1 more messages]

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 11:14:14AM +0800, Wei Chen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 8 June 2016 at 00:24, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:01:35PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Wei Chen writes ("[RFC v2] xen/arm: build: add missed dependency for head.S"):
> >> > In current Xen build rules, the build system will only check the
> >> > dependencies in current folder and obj-y generated dependencies
> >> > in other folder.
> >> >
> >> > But Makefile may add some objects to ALL_OBJS. These objects may
> >> > be not in the same folder as Makefile. Use arch/arm/Makefile as
> >> > an example:
> >> >     ALL_OBJS := $(TARGET_SUBARCH)/head.o
> >>
> >> Thanks for the v2.
> >>
> >> But I think I actually somewhat prefer the v1 approach, for these
> >> reasons:
> >>
> >> On 03/06/16 11:07, Wei Chen wrote:
> >> > In my mind, the better way to fix this bug is converting the DEPS from
> >> > ALL_OBJS. But I am afraid of the impact. I am not sure whether there
> >> > are some dependencies are not generated from obj files.
> >> >
> >> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [RFC] xen/arm: build: add missed dependency for head.S"):
> >> > I do like this idea but I have the same worry.  It might be possible
> >> > to dump ALL_OBJS out somehow and check this, but it might be
> >> > arch-dependent.
> >> >
> >> > Wei Chen's patch is IMO a straightforward fix.
> >>
> >> I won't NAK the v2 but I think if Wei Chen is still happy for us to do
> >> so, we should commit the v1.
> >>
> >> Ian.
> >
> > We shall take either v1 or v2. I don't really have an opinion which one.
> >
> 
> Thank you. I will be happy if anyone would be committed. IMO, please
> commit the v1 patch.

Thanks for confirming.

Since both you and Ian prefer v1, I've queued up v1 for both
xen-unstable and 4.7 branch.

Wei.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel