On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:56:37PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>
> Here's the second installment of patches from step 1 of my plan below to clean
> up the kernel header files and sort out the inclusion recursion problems.
>
> Note that these patches will need regenerating if the header files
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:56:37PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
Here's the second installment of patches from step 1 of my plan below to clean
up the kernel header files and sort out the inclusion recursion problems.
Note that these patches will need regenerating if the header files they
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> >> >> 3. HEADER COMMENTS NOT RETAINED IN KAPI FILES
>> >
>> > How about the attached changes? This is a delta to the disintegrate
>> > markers
>> > diff I sent earlier.
>>
>> That looks about right to me.
>>
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
3. HEADER COMMENTS NOT RETAINED IN KAPI FILES
How about the attached changes? This is a delta to the disintegrate
markers
diff I sent earlier.
That looks about
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> I haven't looked over the changes yet, but what do my scripts now say?
> (If all's well, they generate no output beyond the list of files.)
Okay, the comparator script gives me:
warthog>sh /tmp/mtk-cmp.sh
include/linux/irqnr.h
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:32 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> I've not checked whether any of the below are fixed in the adjustments
>> that you made in the last 20 hours (though it looks like at least some
>> of them are not), but a little scripting to check the content of
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> I've not checked whether any of the below are fixed in the adjustments
> that you made in the last 20 hours (though it looks like at least some
> of them are not), but a little scripting to check the content of the
> split files showed that while most of them were okay,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM, David Howells wrote:
>
> Oh, and thanks for the write up!
You're welcome. You may want to respond to comments that appear there,
such as this one
https://lwn.net/Articles/508203/
(You can sign up to receive comments on a specific article by mail)
--
Michael
David,
I've not checked whether any of the below are fixed in the adjustments
that you made in the last 20 hours (though it looks like at least some
of them are not), but a little scripting to check the content of the
split files showed that while most of them were okay, in the cases
below, some
Oh, and thanks for the write up!
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >> >> 3. HEADER COMMENTS NOT RETAINED IN KAPI FILES
> >
> > How about the attached changes? This is a delta to the disintegrate markers
> > diff I sent earlier.
>
> That looks about right to me.
>
> Acked-by: Michael Kerrisk
Excellent, thanks. The question is where
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
3. HEADER COMMENTS NOT RETAINED IN KAPI FILES
How about the attached changes? This is a delta to the disintegrate markers
diff I sent earlier.
That looks about right to me.
Acked-by: Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com
Excellent,
Oh, and thanks for the write up!
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
David,
I've not checked whether any of the below are fixed in the adjustments
that you made in the last 20 hours (though it looks like at least some
of them are not), but a little scripting to check the content of the
split files showed that while most of them were okay, in the cases
below, some
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Oh, and thanks for the write up!
You're welcome. You may want to respond to comments that appear there,
such as this one
https://lwn.net/Articles/508203/
(You can sign up to receive comments on a specific article by
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
I've not checked whether any of the below are fixed in the adjustments
that you made in the last 20 hours (though it looks like at least some
of them are not), but a little scripting to check the content of the
split files showed that while most
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:32 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
I've not checked whether any of the below are fixed in the adjustments
that you made in the last 20 hours (though it looks like at least some
of them are not), but a little
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't looked over the changes yet, but what do my scripts now say?
(If all's well, they generate no output beyond the list of files.)
Okay, the comparator script gives me:
warthogsh /tmp/mtk-cmp.sh
David Howells wrote:
> > >> 3. HEADER COMMENTS NOT RETAINED IN KAPI FILES
>
> How about the attached changes? This is a delta to the disintegrate markers
> diff I sent earlier.
See the duplicated-important-banners tag in my GIT tree.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
David Howells wrote:
> Okay... Dealt with that in the script. The following command:
>
> git diff uapi-post-split-20120724
>
> shows the attached.
See tag removed-left-over-markers in my GIT tree.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >> 4. DISINTEGRATE MARKERS LEFT OVER (?)
> >>
> >> Some of the DISINTEGRATE markers that you create during the scripting
> >> process are left in the final uapi files. Was this intentional?
> >
> > Ummm... no, there shouldn't be any.
> >
> > Certainly the marker has
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >> 2. EMPTY UAPI HEADERS
> >>
> >> Some of the resulting uapi header files are empty:
> >> ...
> >> I imagine this should be reasonably easy to fix.
> >
> > Fix how? The Kbuild files say these headers must exist in UAPI space, but
> > the __KERNEL__ guards therein don't
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:23 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> A few other points that I noticed now...
>>
>> 1. GIT HISTORY COULD BE RETAINED IN SOME CASES
>> ...
>> But, as currently scripted the "new" uapi header file does not carry
>> over the git history of the old
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> A few other points that I noticed now...
>
> 1. GIT HISTORY COULD BE RETAINED IN SOME CASES
> ...
> But, as currently scripted the "new" uapi header file does not carry
> over the git history of the old "kapi" header, even though it is an
> exact duplicate of that file.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:19 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> In the uapi-split branch, there are now 44 empty Kbuild files. Was
>> that intended? Or, should these files rather be removed by your
>> patches?
>
> To be removed by a later patch, I think. Getting rid of some
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
4. DISINTEGRATE MARKERS LEFT OVER (?)
Some of the DISINTEGRATE markers that you create during the scripting
process are left in the final uapi files. Was this intentional?
Ummm... no, there shouldn't be any.
Certainly the marker has
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Okay... Dealt with that in the script. The following command:
git diff uapi-post-split-20120724
shows the attached.
See tag removed-left-over-markers in my GIT tree.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
3. HEADER COMMENTS NOT RETAINED IN KAPI FILES
How about the attached changes? This is a delta to the disintegrate markers
diff I sent earlier.
See the duplicated-important-banners tag in my GIT tree.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:19 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
In the uapi-split branch, there are now 44 empty Kbuild files. Was
that intended? Or, should these files rather be removed by your
patches?
To be removed by a later patch,
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
A few other points that I noticed now...
1. GIT HISTORY COULD BE RETAINED IN SOME CASES
...
But, as currently scripted the new uapi header file does not carry
over the git history of the old kapi header, even though it is an
exact duplicate of
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:23 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
A few other points that I noticed now...
1. GIT HISTORY COULD BE RETAINED IN SOME CASES
...
But, as currently scripted the new uapi header file does not carry
over the
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
2. EMPTY UAPI HEADERS
Some of the resulting uapi header files are empty:
...
I imagine this should be reasonably easy to fix.
Fix how? The Kbuild files say these headers must exist in UAPI space, but
the __KERNEL__ guards therein
Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> In the uapi-split branch, there are now 44 empty Kbuild files. Was
> that intended? Or, should these files rather be removed by your
> patches?
To be removed by a later patch, I think. Getting rid of some of them isn't
trivial - ones in arch/x/include/asm/Kbuild for
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM, David Howells wrote:
[...]
> ===
> IMPLEMENTING STEP 1
> ===
>
> The patches actually posted here are the manual preparation for the UAPI split
> in step (1) above. I haven't posted the patches that do the actual splitting
> by
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
===
IMPLEMENTING STEP 1
===
The patches actually posted here are the manual preparation for the UAPI split
in step (1) above. I haven't posted the patches that do the actual
Michael Kerrisk mtk.manpa...@gmail.com wrote:
In the uapi-split branch, there are now 44 empty Kbuild files. Was
that intended? Or, should these files rather be removed by your
patches?
To be removed by a later patch, I think. Getting rid of some of them isn't
trivial - ones in
On Friday 20 July 2012, David Howells wrote:
> (a) It reduces the size of the kernel-only headers and obviates the need
> for __KERNEL__ conditionals in the remnant kernel-only headers.
>
> (b) In what we have today, there are complex interdependencies between
>
On Friday 20 July 2012, David Howells wrote:
(a) It reduces the size of the kernel-only headers and obviates the need
for __KERNEL__ conditionals in the remnant kernel-only headers.
(b) In what we have today, there are complex interdependencies between
headers
38 matches
Mail list logo
