From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1Umdag-0006BO-GE for mharc-qemu-trivial@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:27:26 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55782) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmdaY-00069h-Fs for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:27:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmdaQ-00046m-GI for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:27:18 -0400 Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.7]:45469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmdaP-00046R-QO for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:27:10 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp07.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:50:30 +0530 Received: from d28dlp03.in.ibm.com (9.184.220.128) by e28smtp07.in.ibm.com (192.168.1.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:50:27 +0530 Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62]) by d28dlp03.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DBA1258053; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:55:51 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r5C5Qrxm18153530; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:56:54 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r5C5QvoE005465; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:26:57 +1000 Received: from explorer.ibm.com (explorer.in.ibm.com [9.124.31.139]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r5C5Qvjl005453 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:26:57 +1000 From: "M. Mohan Kumar" To: Michael Tokarev In-Reply-To: <51B76A28.5030008@msgid.tls.msk.ru> References: <1370897240-23490-1-git-send-email-mjt@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <51B7183E.6070203@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <87ehc8tvd5.fsf@gmail.com> <51B76A28.5030008@msgid.tls.msk.ru> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.1.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:56:57 +0530 Message-ID: <878v2fucf2.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13061205-8878-0000-0000-0000077EA4AB X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 122.248.162.7 Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH trivial] configure: explicitly disable virtfs if softmmu=no X-BeenThere: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:27:25 -0000 Michael Tokarev writes: > 11.06.2013 21:23, M. Mohan Kumar wrote: >> Peter Maydell writes: >> >> How about this approach? > > Well, this is definitely wrong :) > >> -if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then >> - if test "$virtfs" != no ; then >> + >> +if test "$virtfs" != no ; then >> + if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then >> if test "$cap" = yes && test "$linux" = yes && test "$attr" = yes ; then >> virtfs=yes >> tools="$tools fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper\$(EXESUF)" >> @@ -3415,6 +3416,12 @@ if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then >> fi >> virtfs=no >> fi >> + else >> + if test "$virtfs" = yes; then >> + error_exit "VirtFS is supported only on Linux and requires softmmu" >> + else >> + virtfs=no >> + fi >> fi >> if [ "$linux" = "yes" -o "$bsd" = "yes" -o "$solaris" = "yes" ] ; then >> if [ "$guest_agent" = "yes" ]; then > > Now this "if [ $linux..." test is only checked > if $virtfs != no. Before, it was checked when > $softmmu != no... My bad :(, I missed check for guest_agent inside softmmu case. > > FWIW, I still don't understand what Peter Maydell dislikes > in a simplest case I posted initially, where we merely ignore > (disable) virtfs in case !softmmu. We should probably do the > same for alot of other features which makes sense only if > softmmu==yes, and omit many configure tests which are still > done even if softmmu is disabled, but that's a different > patch for sure. Maube we should separate out this last linux|bsd|solaris > test and add another if softmmu there, for readability, so that > disabling of virtfs will be closer to other virtfs tests. > > I applied my initial patch to our debian tree to fix build > failure for now, because else it fails during build. > > Thanks, > > /mjt