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

Juan Quintela quintela at redhat.com
Sat Jun 3 03:17:49 UTC 2006

On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:54 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:


> I agree that it's an ugly hack.  But please consider two things:
> 1. If you look at the revision history for xen-mkbuildtree-pre (at the
>    link I posted above) you'll see that it's down from 12 files to
>    2 in the past month.  We're working hard on getting rid of it
>    completely.

That is one steep in the right direction :)

> 2. The two files that are left have zero chance of confusing your
>    patching process.  One is regenerated on every build
>    (asm-xsi-offsets.h).  The other is planning to be moved soon.

It is my understanding that you generate this file during the hypervisor
building, right.  Just now, we are not generating file from the
hypervisor, but we could generate it.

> > If you already have a different repository, why don't you _just_ put
> > that files into the right place in the 1st place?

> Now I'm the one that's confused!  :-(

Sorry, to confuse you.

> I don't have a different repository.  I have a temporary
> xen-ia64-unstable tree ported to 2.6.17-rc5-git6 (at the moment) so
> I could generate linux-2.6-xen.patch.  The repository I have
> personally is only for the purpose of prototyping this effort.

ok, s/repository/tree/, or s/repository/local repository/.  You are
already patching the xen-unstable tree.  Your patch contains several
changes.  Why don't you add just two files instead of a script that
generates two links to two files that you also included in your patch?

I am losing anything?  Or could you, instead of generate the script that
links the files, just include the files in the right place?

> At this point I'm working on going from prototyping to integration,
> which means that instead of using my temporary tree, we'll use the
> xen-unstable tree that you have already ported.  xen-unstable and
> xen-ia64-unstable were synced just a couple days ago so it should work
> well on ia64.

Actually we use linux-2.6-xen instead of xen-unstable because it is a
_real_ tree, and make everything _so_ much nicer :)

What I don't understand is:

a- all your changes are on xen-unstable, then they should also be on
linux-2.6-xen, and you should do nothing, everything should be fine.

b- some of your patches are not on xen-unstable, and you need to send me
a patch.  If you have to send me a patch to put on top of my linux-xen
patch, then you can also include that two missing files instead of one
sript that generates a link to them?

I am missing anything?

> Thanks for looking at the changes.  I'll work on eradicating
> xen-mkbuildtree-pre, but it will probably take a few days at least.

A few days is not a problem at all :)

Later, Juan.

More information about the Fedora-xen mailing list