Re: [PATCH v2] firmware/shim : filter output files during Xen tree setup

From: Christopher Clark <christopher.w.clark@gmail.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] firmware/shim : filter output files during Xen tree setup
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:10:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACMJ4GbtbVGfRmqiT448vG6aXgWTZyFrwgT+mEXrQdH9tz05Jg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5B58308B02000078001D784A@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2185 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:

> >>> On 25.07.18 at 02:28, <christopher.w.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
> > --- a/tools/firmware/xen-dir/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/firmware/xen-dir/Makefile
> > @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@ D=xen-root
> >  LINK_DIRS=config xen
> >  LINK_FILES=Config.mk
> >
> > +# Files to exclude from the link farm
> > +EXCLUDE_FILES=xen xen.gz xen-syms xen-syms.map xen.efi xen.efi.map \
> > +              efi.lds xen.lds mkelf32 mkreloc
>
>
> So what about the auxiliary ones created there, like ..xen-syms.* or
> ..xen.efi.*

Thanks for this feedback. After rebuilding binutils to include an
EFI-capable linker, and then all tools dependent on that, and then building
the Xen tree, these files have become evident.

I added handling for these to the exclusion list, and tested with each of
Xen 4.10.1(*), 4.11.0 and staging: Each build passes "make", "make install"
in fresh trees without rebuilding the shim during the install step.

The 4.10.1 test was with this additional commit applied:
  commit 8717e7417cebeae162fd61ea4cbdcdd422748f08
  Author: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
    shim: don't let build modify shim.config

I'll post a v3 patch with the updated exclusion list as per above.

To amend my earlier reply to v1, here's a diff between the initial
> linkfarm.stamp
> and one resulting after a first incremental re-build:

> --- .../tools/firmware/xen-dir/linkfarm.stamp
> +++ .../tools/firmware/xen-dir/linkfarm.stamp
>
>

> I think all additions here should be considered as exclusion candidates.
>

The unfortunate thing about that list is that it is quite a bit longer and
will be more vulnerable to change. It includes header files which makes me
wary of it. You could shorten it with some wildcard matching, and you'll be
approaching something similar to the gitignore file content, as Roger had
pointed towards, but my preference is to leave it alone.

None of the options here that are short of a rewrite are great, but the
short exclusion list improves the behaviour for non-incremental builds,
which is a benefit for downstream and production builds where incremental
builds are not a requirement.

Christopher

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3993 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel