Re: Development tree, PLEASE?

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 01:28:13PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
 > 
 > > -rw-r--r--    1 davej    davej        4613 Dec 15 23:31 linux-2.6-build-nonintconfig.patch
 > > 
 > > Adds a 'nonintconfig' target that behaves like oldconfig, but doesn't
 > > ask any questions (takes the default answer), and prints out a list
 > > at the end of all the options it didn't know about.
 > > (Handy when rebasing, as it means I get to add all the new options
 > >  in one swoop).
 > 
 > You also get the default answers with 'yes "" | make oldconfig', but what 
 > exactly are you doing with the list of config options?
 > What are the changes to confdata.c for?

Convenience more than anything.

It's to do with how the configs for Fedora/RHEL kernels are generated.
Rather than have a dozen separate .config files, and have to add a new
option to each of them, it's done in a 'templated' manner.

We have for eg, a config-generic, and then various config-$arch files,
which are munged together with a perl script to generate a final .config
that our build system eats for each arch it builds.

Having a list of all the new options together means that I can just cut-n-paste
that block of text into config-generic, and then drop out the ones that
should be per-arch.

I've felt it's another of those 'of little practical use to anyone not building
a Fedora/RHEL kernel' type patches that I've not bothered pushing it upstream.

		Dave