From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl. Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:09:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20090104080931.GA31198@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <200901020207.30359.rob@landley.net> <200901031346.01325.rob@landley.net> <20090103201059.GA4875@uranus.ravnborg.org> <200901031945.35163.rob@landley.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200901031945.35163.rob@landley.net> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Rob Landley Cc: Matthieu CASTET , Arkadiusz Miskiewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Embedded Linux mailing list , Andrew Morton , "H. Peter Anvin" On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 07:45:34PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > > With respect to your three patches the plan is to: > > - add the updated timeconst patch to kbuild-next > > - add the updated cpu-feature patch to kbuild-next > > > > - the patch touching headers_install will not be merged. > > The way forward for headers_install is to combine the > > unifdef feature and the header modifications. > > Since you're turning down an existing patch in favor of a theoretical patch, I > assume you have plans to do this yourself? If noone else beats me I will do so - yes. > > > And this must be in a single program that can process > > all headers in one go so the install process becomes so fast > > that we do not worry about if it was done before or not. > > Then we can avoid all the .* files in the directory > > where we isntall the headers. > > What if they run out of disk space halfway through writing a file and thus it > creates a short file (or a 0 length file where the dentry was created but no > blocks could be allocated for the write)? Then they fail and make will know. Then may leave a file or 100 but it still failed. At next run everything will be done right assuming the culprint has been fixed. > I can try to make the shell version more readable, and more powerful. It's > already noticeably faster than the perl version. I have no objections to > making unifdef do all of this, I just haven't got any interest either. I have no interest in merging a shell version. I clearly expressed above that we need a _single_ program doing all of the preparations and we do not need a reimplmentatio of the current headers_install. I also explained why. Sam