On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 12:14 PM Joe Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 11:58:06AM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 10:00 AM Joe Lawrence <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > [...] > > > @@ -807,6 +906,8 @@ build_patch_module() { > > > process_args "$@" > > > do_init > > > > > > +maybe_rebase_patches > > > + > > > if (( SHORT_CIRCUIT <= 1 )); then > > > > I think we should call maybe_rebase_patches within this > > if condition. > > > > Hi Song, > > Ah yeah I stumbled on this, probably overthinking it: > > - we want to validate rebased patches (when requested) > - validate_patches() isn't really required for step 1 (building the > original kernel) but ... > - it's nice to check the patches before going off and building a full > kernel > - the patches are needed in step 2 (building the patched kernel) but ... > - patch validation occurs in step 1
Hmm.. I see your point now. > so given the way the short circuiting works, I didn't see a good way to > fold it in there. The user might want to jump right to building the > patched kernel with patch rebasing. Maybe that's not valid thinking if > the rebase occurs in step 1 and they are left behind in klp-tmp/ (so > jumping to step 2 will just use the patches in the scratch dir and not > command line?). It's Friday, maybe I'm missing something obvious? :) Maybe we should add another SHORT_CIRCUIT level for the validate and rebase step? It could be step 0, or we can shift all existing steps. Thanks, Song
