5 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-develRe: [Xen-devel] status of _patches/li...
FromSent OnAttachments
Jan Beulich27 Mar 2006 07:47 
Keir Fraser27 Mar 2006 08:06 
Jan Beulich27 Mar 2006 08:28 
Jan Beulich27 Mar 2006 12:59 
Christian Limpach30 Mar 2006 01:19 
Subject:Re: [Xen-devel] status of _patches/linux-2.6.16/*
From:Christian Limpach (chri@gmail.com)
Date:03/30/2006 01:19:31 AM
List:com.xensource.lists.xen-devel

On 3/27/06, Jan Beulich <jbeu@novell.com> wrote:

Keir Fraser <Keir@cl.cam.ac.uk> 03/27/06 6:07 PM >>>

On 27 Mar 2006, at 16:48, Jan Beulich wrote:

I'm a little confused about these patches. Could anyone clarify whether they are supposed to be applied? mkbuildtree doesn't seem to use them. And some of the stuff in there is present in the sparse tree already, while other parts aren't.

They're applied by a rule in buildconfigs/Rules.mk.

Just as a follow-up: I was just told that the _patches thing is something that gets done to our internal tree, so forget about that inconsistency. What remains is the question why some of what's in these patches is already in the sparse tree. Is that simply because the patches get applied before overlaying the sparse tree, and hence the files that are in the sparse tree have to duplicate the code? If so, it would seem much cleaner to remove i386-mach-io-check-nmi.patch and smp-alts.patch (as they appear to completely live in the sparse tree) and add the few files needed for fully applying the others.

Yes, parts of these patches which touch files which are in the sparse tree are applied to the files in the sparse tree because the patches get applied before the sparse tree files overwrite the files from the reference tree.

I find maintaining these patches quite painful and have considered doing what you suggest several times. I think I'll make that change once 3.0.2 is out.

christian