Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Masahiro Yamada]

2017-03-20 19:13 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon :
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:37:55AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
>> > Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
>> > > I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
>> > > it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
>> > > point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
>> > > still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
>> > > important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
>> > > a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
>> > > everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!
>> >
>> > The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
>> > patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
>> > instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.
>>
>> Ah, OK, thanks.  I'll just hope it gets in soon, I like being able to
>> easily drop new kernels in on my arm64 box :)
>
> I'll pick up the arm64 patch this week (I was on holiday last week).
>
> Will
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



The patch 9442211 has been applied to linux-kbuild/misc
(Will acked to do so.)





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Masahiro Yamada]

2017-03-20 19:13 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon :
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:37:55AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
>> > Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
>> > > I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
>> > > it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
>> > > point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
>> > > still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
>> > > important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
>> > > a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
>> > > everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!
>> >
>> > The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
>> > patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
>> > instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.
>>
>> Ah, OK, thanks.  I'll just hope it gets in soon, I like being able to
>> easily drop new kernels in on my arm64 box :)
>
> I'll pick up the arm64 patch this week (I was on holiday last week).
>
> Will
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



The patch 9442211 has been applied to linux-kbuild/misc
(Will acked to do so.)





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:37:55AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> > Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
> > > I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
> > > it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
> > > point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
> > > still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
> > > important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
> > > a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
> > > everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!
> > 
> > The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
> > patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
> > instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.
> 
> Ah, OK, thanks.  I'll just hope it gets in soon, I like being able to
> easily drop new kernels in on my arm64 box :)

I'll pick up the arm64 patch this week (I was on holiday last week).

Will

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:37:55AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> > Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
> > > I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
> > > it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
> > > point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
> > > still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
> > > important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
> > > a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
> > > everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!
> > 
> > The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
> > patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
> > instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.
> 
> Ah, OK, thanks.  I'll just hope it gets in soon, I like being able to
> easily drop new kernels in on my arm64 box :)

I'll pick up the arm64 patch this week (I was on holiday last week).

Will

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
> > I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
> > it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
> > point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
> > still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
> > important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
> > a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
> > everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!
> 
> The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
> patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
> instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.

Ah, OK, thanks.  I'll just hope it gets in soon, I like being able to
easily drop new kernels in on my arm64 box :)

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:03:44PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
> > I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
> > it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
> > point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
> > still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
> > important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
> > a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
> > everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!
> 
> The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
> patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
> instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.

Ah, OK, thanks.  I'll just hope it gets in soon, I like being able to
easily drop new kernels in on my arm64 box :)

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Michal Marek]

Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
> I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
> it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
> point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
> still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
> important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
> a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
> everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!

The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.

Michal

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Michal Marek]

Dne 15.3.2017 v 15:51 Tom Rini napsal(a):
> I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
> it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
> point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
> still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
> important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
> a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
> everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!

The patch is 1/6 of a series that also covers other architectures, but
patchwork won't should you the rest of the thread. Have a look here for
instance: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/11/22/750.

Michal

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:59:22PM +, Tom Rini wrote:

> On some architectures, such as arm64, KBUILD_IMAGE is not a full path
> but instead just the build target.  The builddeb script handles this
> case correctly today and will try arch/$ARCH/boot/$KBUILD_IMAGE so we
> can just borrow that logic and adapt it slightly for spec file syntax.
> 
> Cc: Michal Marek 
> Cc: linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Catalin Marinas 
> Cc: Will Deacon 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini 
> ---
> It is currently a mixed-bag on if architectures will use a build target
> (arm, arm64, arc are certainly by inspection and a few others 'may') or
> a full path (x86, blackfin, s390).  Given that builddeb gets this case
> correct, I think changing mkspec is the right way to go here.

I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 11:59:22PM +, Tom Rini wrote:

> On some architectures, such as arm64, KBUILD_IMAGE is not a full path
> but instead just the build target.  The builddeb script handles this
> case correctly today and will try arch/$ARCH/boot/$KBUILD_IMAGE so we
> can just borrow that logic and adapt it slightly for spec file syntax.
> 
> Cc: Michal Marek 
> Cc: linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Catalin Marinas 
> Cc: Will Deacon 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini 
> ---
> It is currently a mixed-bag on if architectures will use a build target
> (arm, arm64, arc are certainly by inspection and a few others 'may') or
> a full path (x86, blackfin, s390).  Given that builddeb gets this case
> correct, I think changing mkspec is the right way to go here.

I found https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9442211/ today and I see that
it was brought up again just before I sent my patch.  I just want to
point out that 9442211 doesn't address arm, arc, and sh and they will
still not have a functional rpm build target.  This is at least probably
important for arm.  Of course all of those could also be addressed with
a patch similar to 9442211, and my main concern is making sure
everything gets fixed one way or another.  Thanks!

-- 
Tom


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[PATCH] kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Tom Rini]

On some architectures, such as arm64, KBUILD_IMAGE is not a full path
but instead just the build target.  The builddeb script handles this
case correctly today and will try arch/$ARCH/boot/$KBUILD_IMAGE so we
can just borrow that logic and adapt it slightly for spec file syntax.

Cc: Michal Marek 
Cc: linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Catalin Marinas 
Cc: Will Deacon 
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini 
---
It is currently a mixed-bag on if architectures will use a build target
(arm, arm64, arc are certainly by inspection and a few others 'may') or
a full path (x86, blackfin, s390).  Given that builddeb gets this case
correct, I think changing mkspec is the right way to go here.
---
 scripts/package/mkspec | 6 +-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/scripts/package/mkspec b/scripts/package/mkspec
index bb43f153fd8e..aa5f3db43f12 100755
--- a/scripts/package/mkspec
+++ b/scripts/package/mkspec
@@ -101,7 +101,11 @@ echo "%ifarch ppc64"
 echo "cp vmlinux arch/powerpc/boot"
 echo "cp arch/powerpc/boot/"'$KBUILD_IMAGE 
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
 echo "%else"
-echo 'cp $KBUILD_IMAGE $RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
+echo "if [ -e $KBUILD_IMAGE ]; then"
+echo '  cp $KBUILD_IMAGE $RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
+echo "else"
+echo '  cp arch/$ARCH/boot/$KBUILD_IMAGE 
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
+echo "fi"
 echo "%endif"
 echo "%endif"
 
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH] kbuild/mkspec: Fix architectures where KBUILD_IMAGE isn't a full path

[Tom Rini]

On some architectures, such as arm64, KBUILD_IMAGE is not a full path
but instead just the build target.  The builddeb script handles this
case correctly today and will try arch/$ARCH/boot/$KBUILD_IMAGE so we
can just borrow that logic and adapt it slightly for spec file syntax.

Cc: Michal Marek 
Cc: linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Catalin Marinas 
Cc: Will Deacon 
Signed-off-by: Tom Rini 
---
It is currently a mixed-bag on if architectures will use a build target
(arm, arm64, arc are certainly by inspection and a few others 'may') or
a full path (x86, blackfin, s390).  Given that builddeb gets this case
correct, I think changing mkspec is the right way to go here.
---
 scripts/package/mkspec | 6 +-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/scripts/package/mkspec b/scripts/package/mkspec
index bb43f153fd8e..aa5f3db43f12 100755
--- a/scripts/package/mkspec
+++ b/scripts/package/mkspec
@@ -101,7 +101,11 @@ echo "%ifarch ppc64"
 echo "cp vmlinux arch/powerpc/boot"
 echo "cp arch/powerpc/boot/"'$KBUILD_IMAGE 
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
 echo "%else"
-echo 'cp $KBUILD_IMAGE $RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
+echo "if [ -e $KBUILD_IMAGE ]; then"
+echo '  cp $KBUILD_IMAGE $RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
+echo "else"
+echo '  cp arch/$ARCH/boot/$KBUILD_IMAGE 
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT'"/boot/vmlinuz-$KERNELRELEASE"
+echo "fi"
 echo "%endif"
 echo "%endif"
 
-- 
2.7.4