From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martijn Lievaart Subject: Re: I don't understand what goes where, very confused about POM-ng Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 21:28:45 +0200 Sender: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <4099406D.4080606@rtij.nl> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jozsef Kadlecsik Return-path: To: Netfilter Developers List In-Reply-To: Errors-To: netfilter-devel-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: >Hi Martijn, > > Hi, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. >On Wed, 5 May 2004, Martijn Lievaart wrote: > > > >>Using CVS of today 5/5/2004. >> >>I'm trying to port the psd match to 2.6. The C code is ready (not much >>of a change needed). However POM will not apply the headerfile from the >>linux/ tree, I need to copy it to the linux-2.6 tree. I would expect >>that everything in the linux tree would also be applied, eventually >>overridden by something in the linux-2.6 tree. Why else have seperate >>linux-2.4 trees? >> >> > >No, every tree is for their own version(s) and they must contain >everything which is needed for a patch to be complete installed. The >reason for this is that there can be missing/added files in different >kernel trees. For example how could a program figure out in the case > > linux/include/linux/netfilter_foo.h > linux/include/linux/netfilter_bar.h > > linux-2.6/include/linux/netfilter_foo.h > >that linux/include/linux/netfilter_bar.h is required for linux-2.6 or not? > > > Well, there are also linux-2.4 trees. So at first sight it would seem that linux-/ is specific to that version and plain linux/ is for any version. But it seemes the linux/ is a synonym for linux-2.4 right? >>By now I gather that POM-ng tries to find a best match, and does this >>independently for the ladds and the files (and the patches as well?). I >>find this very confusing, but I think this is by design? >> >> > >Yes, this is by design. Or call it a feature :-). > > Confusing, but I see the value, yes. > > >>Anyhow, I looked at a couple of other patches and many have their header >>file only in the linux-tree. Many are also base, so probably already >>applied to any 2.6 kernel, but the why have a linux-2.6 tree in that >>case? One patch where this really breaks is the XOR patch, it does not >>apply to 2.6 because POM-ng does not copy the header. >> >> > >Then those patches are broken in pom-ng and have to be fixed. > > Clear. Someone, please copy XOR/linux/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_XOR.h to XOR/linux-2.6/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4/ipt_XOR.h in CVS. >>As an alternative, would it be possible to just create a linux-2.6.patch >>file that applies after the 2.4 patch has applied? This would be a good >>solution because many patches need only minor modifications to newly >>added files (especially only ipt_xxx.c) to make them run under 2.6. >> >> > >No, that won't go either. What should we do when linux-2.7 comes out and >from some reason there are 2.4, 2.6 versions supported? Should the >linux-2.7.patch depend on linux-2.4.patch and linux-2.6.patch then? > > Not what I ment, but never mind. If I can find time I'll express it in code and submit it. >I believe the current behaviour is the most simple and straightforward: >every three contains everything which is required. No cross-dependency. >No magic between trees. Simpler pom scripts. Also, we support broken out >patches. How could that fitted into other designs easily? > > > It makes maintenance of the patches more difficult, you have exactly the same files multiple times, because only one or a few from a set are different. And those that are different are often only different in a few lines. Having a way to say "for 2.6, copy this file from linux-2.4, then patch with this patchfile" (or vice versa for those that are on 2.6) seems a nice feature. But I can live without it. Thanks, Martijn Lievaart