[Fedora-xen] Re: fedora-xen-ia64 integration, step 1

[Aron Griffis]

Juan Quintela wrote:  [Fri Jun 02 2006, 12:14:25PM EDT]
> >     - run the xen-mkbuildtree-pre hook following applying the xen
> >       patch.  This touches a couple files on ia64 but doesn't
> >       interfere with any patching down the line.  (I and others have
> >       been submitting patches to xen-ia64-devel and xen-devel to
> >       further reduce its function, but it should be harmless as-is.)
> 
> I think that this one is not acceptable :(
> We compile from the same source on _all_ architectures.  If the source
> changes  from architecture to architecture, we are broken :(
> 
> Notice also that I do my compile testing as something like:i 
> 
> cd tree
> for arch in $CONFIGS; do
> 	make O=../$ARCH all
> done

Ok, we can make this work, no problem :-)

Here is the current xen-mkbuildtree-pre in xen-unstable: 
http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?f=a2d784a51f25;file=linux-2.6-xen-sparse/arch/ia64/xen-mkbuildtree-pre

Instead of running it only on ia64, we can run it on all
architectures.  Since the recent patches, the last remaining files
created by that script are:

    include/asm-ia64/xen/asm-xsi-offsets.h
    drivers/xen/core/xenia64_init.c

Neither of those affect any architecture other than ia64.  I'm hoping
to move the second one to a better home next week.  The first one is
less trivial since it's auto-generated in the hypervisor build.

> >     - update numerous hardcoded references to /boot to usetu
> >       %{image_install_path} instead.  But make an exception for the
> >       xenU kernels which never need to be available for system
> >       boot.
> 
> Uh, oh.  If everything happens as I hope, after this weekend, xenU
> kernel is history.  xen0 & xenU kernels are going to be the same
> kernel :p  You need another solution here.  I haven't studied the ia64
> efi thing to be able to suggest anything, sorry.

No problem.  I'm very happy to switch to a unified xen kernel.

> >     - build the hypervisor with %{?_smp_mflags} (it works fine)
> 
>  
> >  %if %{buildup}
> > -BuildKernel %make_target %kernel_image
> > +BuildKernel %{make_target} %{kernel_image}
> >  %endif
> 
> Any reason why you do this changes?  in space separated cases, it
> shouldn't be needed the use of {}

Nope, it just seemed more consistent with, for example, the %if
conditional preceding it :-)

Aron
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/attachments/20060602/24e7e9eb/attachment.sig>