From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sfi-mx-4.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.28.124] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by 3yr0jf1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MO4dl-0000sS-8l for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:58:57 +0000 Received: from eu1sys200aog120.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.149]) by 1b2kzd1.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) id 1MO4dg-00069f-V7 for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:58:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4A52F207.1010106@st.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:58:15 +0200 From: Francesco RUNDO MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4A51CEDC.6080605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4A51E253.200@st.com> <364299f40907061028o4c9c2922ma7d430f5e03f4b38@mail.gmail.com> <200907061806.47824.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200907061806.47824.vapier@gentoo.org> 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="===============8196949865293997293==" Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Mike Frysinger Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, ltp-list@lists.sf.net This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============8196949865293997293== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070200060506020408080406" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070200060506020408080406 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike Frysinger wrote: >On Monday 06 July 2009 13:28:00 Garrett Cooper wrote: > > >>On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Francesco RUNDO wrote: >> >> >>>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. >> >> > >selectively compiling groups of code needs to be thought out before we start >throwing --with-foo options at the problem. otherwise we'll still end up with >crap, just in a different form. > > > >>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, the merged patch and that makefile suck. there should never be any >filesystem check in a Makefile anymore. while peeking in /proc is somewhat >forgivable, looking for headers never is ok. we have autoconf tests now and >Gowri's approach looks like the correct one. >-mike > I agree with your explanation. My patch tried to address an issue on the testcase when LTP is cross-compiled. Thanks so much. Best Regards -- FR --------------070200060506020408080406 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mike Frysinger wrote:

On Monday 06 July 2009 13:28:00 Garrett Cooper wrote:

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Francesco RUNDO wrote:

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.


selectively compiling groups of code needs to be thought out before we start 
throwing --with-foo options at the problem.  otherwise we'll still end up with 
crap, just in a different form.

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, the merged patch and that makefile suck.  there should never be any 
filesystem check in a Makefile anymore.  while peeking in /proc is somewhat 
forgivable, looking for headers never is ok.  we have autoconf tests now and 
Gowri's approach looks like the correct one.
-mike

I agree with your explanation. My patch tried to address an issue on the testcase when LTP is cross-compiled.

Thanks so much.
Best Regards
--
FR

--------------070200060506020408080406-- --===============8196949865293997293== 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 --===============8196949865293997293== 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 --===============8196949865293997293==--