On 5.4.2011 21:24, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 08:49 -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 04:58:47PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> this series makes it possible to build bit-identical kernel image and >>> modules from identical sources. Of course the build is already >>> deterministic in terms of behavior of the code, but the various >>> timestamps embedded in the object files make it hard to compare two >>> builds, for instance to verify that a makefile cleanup didn't >>> accidentally change something. A prime example is /proc/config.gz, which >>> has both a timestamp in the gzip header and a timestamp in the payload >>> data. With this series applied, a script like this will produce >>> identical kernels each time: >> >> Very nice stuff. Do you want to take the individual patches through one >> of your trees, or do you mind if the subsystem maintainers take them >> through theirs? > > But unfortunately, it is very easy to break this and for sure it'll be > broken very soon.
I'm not so pessimistic. 34 patches and 57 files might sound like a lot, but given that this has been accumulating since day one, the cleanup should last for some time. > So additionally, I'd suggest: > 1. Instrument checkpatch.pl and make it err or warn on timestamps. This is patch 34/34 in this series: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/5/198 > 2. Probably instrument linux-next to rise a warning when people break > this. I'm not sure if Stephen has that much spare time, and I don't think it is necessary. I think the checkpatch check is sufficient and I'll check myself occasionally. Michal _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
