On 19:04 Fri 01 Nov 2019, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>On 11/1/19 1:05 AM, Bhaskar Chowdhury wrote:
>> This patch allow you to remove old kernels and associated modules
>> directory from the system.You can do it at once with the -r flag
>> and interactively with the -i flag.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Bhaskar Chowdhury <unixbhaskar@gmail.com>
>
>Hi Bhaskar,
>
>I think that you are getting a lot closer with this patch, but
>there are still a few issues.  And of course, it's not up to me
>whether the patch is applied.
>
>See below.
>
Hi Randy,

Thank you for the review. My understanding below...kindly glean on it..
>> ---
>>  scripts/prune-kernel | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/scripts/prune-kernel b/scripts/prune-kernel
>> index a25aa2160d47..373a845792e6 100755
>> --- a/scripts/prune-kernel
>> +++ b/scripts/prune-kernel
>> @@ -1,3 +1,66 @@
>>  #!/bin/bash
>>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +#This script will remove old kernels and modules directory related to it.
>> +# "-h" or "--help" show how to use this script or show without parameter.
>> +#"-r" or "--remove" show how to silently remove old kernel and modules dir.
>> +#"-i" or "--interactive" show how to remove interactively.
>> 
>> +flag=$1
>> +kernel_version=$2
>> +modules_version=$3
>> +boot_dir=/boot
>> +modules_dir=/lib/modules
>> +
>> +remove_old_kernel() {
>> +	cd $boot_dir
>> +	rm -If vmlinuz-$kernel_version System.map-$kernel_version config-$kernel_version
>> +	return 0
>> +}
>> +
>> +remove_old_modules_dir() {
>> +	cd $modules_dir
>> +	rm -rf $modules_version
>> +	return 0
>> +}
>> +
>> +usage() {
>> +	printf "Usage: $(basename $0) [-ri] \n"
>> +	printf "\n -r or --remove  kernel_version modules_version \n"
>> +	printf "\n -i or --interactive do as interactive way \n"
>
>In those 3 printf's, drop the ending space before the \n.
>
Will do in next patch.
>> +	return 0
>> +}
>> +
>> +	case "$flag" in
>> +		-i | --interactive)
>> +			printf "\nEnter kernel version to remove or blank/empty to exit:%s"
>
>Drop the %s - it's not needed.

Will do in next patch.
>
>> +			read kernel_version
>> +			if [[ $kernel_version != "" ]]; then
>> +				remove_old_kernel
>> +				printf "Please give the full modules directory name to remove:%s"
>
>Drop the %s here also.

Will do it next patch.
>
>> +				read modules_version
>> +				if [[ $modules_version != "" ]]; then
>> +					remove_old_modules_dir
>> +					printf "\n\nRemoved kernel version:$kernel_version and associated modules directory:$modules_version ...Done \n"
>> +				else
>> +					exit 1
>> +				fi
>> +			fi
>
>There is still a small problem here: if I enter a kernel_version and then
>remove_old_kernel() is called, and then I enter "" for modules_version,
>the script exits without that printf line.  I guess that it is possible
>that someone only wants to remove the kernel_version files and not the modules.
>

I beg to differ. I think keep around old modules only gobbles up the
space(I know it's aplenty these day...but I came from...)..anyway I
thought it would be good to get rid of these stale stuff at once.
>Perhaps the thing to do is just make the prompts and calls and printf totally
>separate and repeated for kernel_version and modules_version.  Do you see
>what I mean?  or do you have other ideas about this?

Okay, I can understand. I could have done that...but thought instead
show it at once . But again, I will take suggestion and put separate
print statement for kernel removal and modules removal.
>
>> +			;;
>> +		-h | --help)
>> +			usage
>> +			exit 1
>> +			;;
>> +		-r | --remove)
>> +			if [[ $# -ne 3 ]]; then
>> +				printf "You need to provide kernel version and modules directory name \n"
>
>Drop the space before the \n.

Will do it next patch.
>
>> +				exit 1
>> +			else
>> +				remove_old_kernel
>> +				remove_old_modules_dir
>> +			fi
>> +			;;
>> +		*)
>> +			usage
>> +			exit 1
>> +			;;
>> +	esac
>> --
>
>Same comment as before: after applying this patch, the "new" scripts/prune-kernel file
>still contains the previous script's for-loop at the end of the "new" script.
>
>
I am bemused and confused like hell Randy about this. This probably lack
of understanding about git ...not sure though...

In ,wild dream, can I implement a "real new file" and forget about this
whole chapter of trailing.??

Upfront apologies to Bruce...it seems I am getting defeated by my
shortcoming ...heck..
>-- 
>~Randy

Bhaskar
>