From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sfi-mx-1.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.28.121] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by 235xhf1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MO4ZK-000191-Vl for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:54:22 +0000 Received: from eu1sys200aog111.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.131]) by 29vjzd1.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) id 1MO4Z9-00011n-OR for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: <4A52F0D8.7060509@st.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:53:12 +0200 From: Francesco RUNDO MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4A51CEDC.6080605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4A51E253.200@st.com> <364299f40907061028o4c9c2922ma7d430f5e03f4b38@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <364299f40907061028o4c9c2922ma7d430f5e03f4b38@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] cgroups: conditionally enable building cgroup tests List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3033897268108633985==" Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Garrett Cooper Cc: ltp-list@lists.sf.net This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============3033897268108633985== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030104010703000101090906" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030104010703000101090906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Garrett, thanks for your comment. Below, my consideration: Garrett Cooper wrote: >On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Francesco RUNDO wrote: > > >>Hi Gowri, >> >>I've already fixed the same issue you reported. I've tested it successfully. >> >>Subrata has already merged my patch (please, find it in attachment). >> >>Please, check it before to submit another patch. >> >> > >At the end of the day, the real problem is that we're not using the >--with- functionality in autoconf, e.g. --with-cgroups, and instead >we're hacking a lot of noise into Makefile's. > Yes, you're right but your advice can't be applicable in the system in which autoconf is not supported/used to build LTP (a possible scenario in the embedded system). > >Also, you could have called SUBDIRS += once, like so: > >+SUBDIRS += cgroup cpuctl memctl io-throttle freezer cpuset > >I can tell at first glance that that Makefile is a mess anyhow, >because it's referencing _hardcoded_ /proc references and as such will >fail to cross-compile properly if the target or the host are setup >differently from one another, in the following two scenarios: > Yes, check at "/proc" isn't safe as can't be applicable in case of cross-compilation made off-line on the host. I have provided a "work-around" patch to allow off-line cross-compilation trying to reduce the number of changes to be applied to the Makefile. Regards Francesco Rundo --------------030104010703000101090906 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Garrett,

thanks for your comment. Below, my consideration:

Garrett Cooper wrote:

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Francesco RUNDO<francesco.rundo@st.com> wrote:

Hi Gowri,

I've already fixed the same issue you reported. I've tested it successfully.

Subrata has already merged my patch (please, find it in attachment).

Please, check it before to submit another patch.


At the end of the day, the real problem is that we're not using the
--with- functionality in autoconf, e.g. --with-cgroups, and instead
we're hacking a lot of noise into Makefile's.

Yes, you're right but your advice can't be applicable in the system in which autoconf is not supported/used to build LTP (a possible scenario in the embedded system).


Also, you could have called SUBDIRS += once, like so:

+SUBDIRS += cgroup cpuctl memctl io-throttle freezer cpuset

I can tell at first glance that that Makefile is a mess anyhow,
because it's referencing _hardcoded_ /proc references and as such will
fail to cross-compile properly if the target or the host are setup
differently from one another, in the following two scenarios:

Yes, check at "/proc" isn't safe as can't be applicable in case of cross-compilation made off-line on the host.
I have provided a "work-around" patch to allow off-line cross-compilation trying to reduce the number of changes to be applied to the Makefile.

Regards
Francesco Rundo
--------------030104010703000101090906-- --===============3033897268108633985== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/blackberry --===============3033897268108633985== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list --===============3033897268108633985==--