From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:10:22 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] quagga: Do not use fork on noMMU platforms In-Reply-To: References: <1405684663-3100-1-git-send-email-yuvaraj.patil@wipro.com> <20140718140358.2ff1bf5b@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20140720121022.65c59a81@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 17:12:19 +0000, yuvaraj.patil at wipro.com wrote: > > Patches must have a description + Signed-off-by line. > > I could see, Signed-off line is added in patch. You're being confused because you're doing a patch that adds a patch, and we do require a Signed-off-by line on both. We need a Signed-off-by in the commit log of the git commit that describes the Buildroot change, but we also require a Signed-off-by *inside* the patch you're adding, i.e inside the file that was named package/quagga/quagga.patch in your commit. We also require a description to be added in this file. > I used below command sequence (blue colour) to generate a patch. > > #Diff to make a code patch > > diff -Nurp > .patch > > > > #Move the diff generated patch to buildroot package directory And here, you should edit this file, add a description and a Signed-off-by line. > git add .patch > > git commit -a -s > > #add the comment > > > > git format-patch -1 > > #edit the patch to add comments Not necessarily needed. You can add whatever comments are needed while doing "git commit -a -s", as long as you format the commit log as follows: ====================================================================== : Blabla blabla description of the change. Some more description of the change Signed-off-by: Some One --- And here some comments you want to send, but not have them included in the commit log. ====================================================================== Notice how "---" separates what git will include forever in its commit history (what's before the "---" sign) and what is only used to convey additional comments to the patch that should not be added to the commit permanently (what's after the "---" sign). > >We have already received numerous patches like this from ADI, and > >each time our answer was the same: please include in the patch > >description a justification of why the fork() call can be replaced > >by vfork(). I'm sure >you know that vfork() is not equivalent to > >fork() and that we cannot simply replace one by the other without > >checking carefully how > > >fork() is used. With vfork(), the parent process is blocked until > >the child exits or calls exec(), and all changes made by the child > >will be visible by the parent. There are therefore many situations > >in which > > >vfork() cannot be used as a replacement for fork(). > > Can you please provide us a reference example (or a sample patch) > from other architectures, how the fork() issue is fixed? Usually, we simply make the package not available on non-MMU architectures. So far, I don't think anybody submitted a patch turning fork() into vfork() with sufficient explanations for us to include the change. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com