On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 2:54 PM Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 12:46:19PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > 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. > > I don't see how that solves the problem? For --short-circuit=1 and > --short-circuit=2 we still want to validate and rebase the patches > because they are used in step 2. But as Joe mentioned, that can be done > before step 1 to catch any patch errors quickly. > > Something like this? > > if (( SHORT_CIRCUIT <= 2 )); then > status "Validating patch(es)" > validate_patches > fix_patches # including fixing fuzz??? > fi
I was thinking to change the above as if (( SHORT_CIRCUIT <= 0 )) Then we can save the fixed version of all the patches. But I think "SHORT_CIRCUIT <= 2" is cleaner, so this version is better. Thanks, Song
