[PATCH] add build dependency on lxc_protocol.h to remote_daemon

[Slater, Joseph]

I was really only wanting to make sure that both remote_driver and remote_daemon have access to lxc_protocol.h.  I am not an expert in meson builds but I think the only way to do that is have a loop outside of remote_daemon_generated and remote_driver_generated.  You could start with an empty remote_daemon_generated and append remote_xxx_generated after the foreach loop instead of initializing the way I did.

So, your 1) is just a side-effect, not something I was explicitly seeking.

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michal Prívozník <mprivozn at redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 3:13 AM
> To: Slater, Joseph <joe.slater at windriver.com>; libvir-list at redhat.com
> Cc: MacLeod, Randy <Randy.MacLeod at windriver.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] add build dependency on lxc_protocol.h to
> remote_daemon
> 
> On 3/10/22 21:53, Joe Slater wrote:
> > remote_daemon.c and others need the generated header lxc_protocol.h,
> > but do not have it as a dependency in meson.build.  This means that
> > builds will randomly (ok, very occasionally) fail.  Restructure how
> > the header is built so that remote_daemon can have it as a dependency.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joe Slater <joe.slater at windriver.com>
> >
> > ---
> >  src/remote/meson.build | 48
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/remote/meson.build b/src/remote/meson.build index
> > 0a18826..31a30ee 100644
> > --- a/src/remote/meson.build
> > +++ b/src/remote/meson.build
> > @@ -1,27 +1,11 @@
> > -remote_driver_sources = [
> > -  'remote_driver.c',
> > -  'remote_sockets.c',
> > -]
> > -
> > -remote_driver_generated = []
> > +remote_xxx_generated = []
> >
> >  foreach name : [ 'remote', 'qemu', 'lxc' ]
> > -  client_bodies_h = '@0 at _client_bodies.h'.format(name)
> >    protocol_c = '@0 at _protocol.c'.format(name)
> >    protocol_h = '@0 at _protocol.h'.format(name)
> >    protocol_x = '@0 at _protocol.x'.format(name)
> >
> > -  remote_driver_generated += custom_target(
> > -    client_bodies_h,
> > -    input: protocol_x,
> > -    output: client_bodies_h,
> > -    command: [
> > -      gendispatch_prog, '--mode=client', name, name.to_upper(), '@INPUT@',
> > -    ],
> > -    capture: true,
> > -  )
> > -
> > -  remote_driver_generated += custom_target(
> > +  remote_xxx_generated += custom_target(
> >      protocol_h,
> >      input: protocol_x,
> >      output: protocol_h,
> > @@ -30,7 +14,7 @@ foreach name : [ 'remote', 'qemu', 'lxc' ]
> >      ],
> >    )
> >
> > -  remote_driver_generated += custom_target(
> > +  remote_xxx_generated += custom_target(
> >      protocol_c,
> >      input: protocol_x,
> >      output: protocol_c,
> > @@ -42,6 +26,30 @@ foreach name : [ 'remote', 'qemu', 'lxc' ]
> >    rpc_probe_files += files(protocol_x)  endforeach
> >
> > +
> > +remote_driver_sources = [
> > +  'remote_driver.c',
> > +  'remote_sockets.c',
> > +]
> > +
> > +remote_driver_generated =remote_xxx_generated
> > +
> > +foreach name : [ 'remote', 'qemu', 'lxc' ]
> > +  client_bodies_h = '@0 at _client_bodies.h'.format(name)
> > +  protocol_x = '@0 at _protocol.x'.format(name)
> > +
> > +  remote_driver_generated += custom_target(
> > +    client_bodies_h,
> > +    input: protocol_x,
> > +    output: client_bodies_h,
> > +    command: [
> > +      gendispatch_prog, '--mode=client', name, name.to_upper(), '@INPUT@',
> > +    ],
> > +    capture: true,
> > +  )
> > +
> > +endforeach
> > +
> >  remote_daemon_sources = files(
> >    'remote_daemon.c',
> >    'remote_daemon_config.c',
> > @@ -49,7 +57,7 @@ remote_daemon_sources = files(
> >    'remote_daemon_stream.c',
> >  )
> >
> > -remote_daemon_generated = []
> > +remote_daemon_generated = remote_xxx_generated
> 
> So IIUC, this fix consists of two parts:
> 1) generating client_bodies_h only AFTER protocol.x for all three drivers was
> processed,
> 2) Initializing remote_daemon_generated to remote_xxx_generated (which
> contains protocol.x processing targets).
> 
> IMO, it's only the second step that's really needed, isn't it? I'm not against this
> patch, I'm just trying to confirm I understood the problem and the fix.
> 
> Michal