Menu
▾
▴
linuxsh-dev
|
From: SUGIOKA T. <su...@it...> - 2003-05-08 09:38:58
|
Hi, All.
Currently, after scripts/treelink.sh has done, we see many unnecessary files in
arch/sh/kernel and include/asm-sh.
This is because treelink.sh can not remove any files in stock kernel.
If we would always create symbolic link to arch/sh and include/asm-sh,
and there ware all necessary files for these two directories in drop-in-tree,
we wouldn't see garbages in these directories.
For this purpose, scripts/treelink.sh should be slightly modified.
Comments ?
Index: scripts/treelink.sh
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/linuxsh/linux/scripts/treelink.sh,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.2 treelink.sh
--- scripts/treelink.sh 16 Oct 2001 21:33:00 -0000 1.2
+++ scripts/treelink.sh 8 May 2003 09:13:36 -0000
@@ -18,7 +18,11 @@
cd $1 || exit 1
LDIR=${PWD}
echo -n "Building file list ... "
-LIST=`find * \( -type d -name CVS -prune \) -o -type f -print`
+LIST="arch/sh include/asm-sh \
+ `find * \( -type d -name CVS -prune \) \
+ -o \( -type d -name sh -prune \) \
+ -o \( -type d -name asm-sh -prune \) \
+ -o -type f -print`"
echo -e "done."
cd ${ODIR}
@@ -31,7 +35,11 @@
DIR=`dirname $file`
ofile=`basename $file`
[ ! -d ${DIR}/.orig ] && mkdir -p ${DIR}/.orig
- cp $file ${DIR}/.orig/$ofile
+ if [ ! -d $file ]; then
+ cp $file ${DIR}/.orig/$ofile
+ else
+ mv $file ${DIR}/.orig/$ofile
+ fi
fi
done
echo -e "done."
----
SUGIOKA Toshinobu
|
|
From: Paul M. <le...@li...> - 2003-05-08 15:35:08
|
On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:39:57PM +0900, SUGIOKA Toshinobu wrote: > Currently, after scripts/treelink.sh has done, we see many unnecessary files in > arch/sh/kernel and include/asm-sh. > The only reason some of these files are not needed are because they're left over garbage in mainline, once this stuff is synced back up, we can remove a lot of files from the drop-in tree. The purpose of the drop-in tree in the first place was to only include relevant files that needed local modification in order to be of use. If most of this stuff _already_ sits in mainline, then there's no need to track those files in the drop-in tree anymore. If someone needs to patch something on the other hand, then those files can be moved backed in, patched, and so forth. Especially since the drop-in tree already requires that it is applied against a stock kernel version, we don't lose out on anything here. > This is because treelink.sh can not remove any files in stock kernel. > Again, most of these useless files will be removed from mainline, so there's nothing to worry about here. |
|
From: SUGIOKA T. <su...@it...> - 2003-05-09 01:22:03
|
At 10:34 03/05/08 -0500, Paul Mundt <le...@li...> wrote:
>On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 06:39:57PM +0900, SUGIOKA Toshinobu wrote:
>> Currently, after scripts/treelink.sh has done, we see many unnecessary
>files in
>> arch/sh/kernel and include/asm-sh.
>>
>The only reason some of these files are not needed are because they're
>left over garbage in mainline, once this stuff is synced back up,
>we can remove a lot of files from the drop-in tree.
>
>The purpose of the drop-in tree in the first place was to only include
>relevant files that needed local modification in order to be of use. If
>most of this stuff _already_ sits in mainline, then there's no need to
>track those files in the drop-in tree anymore. If someone needs to patch
>something on the other hand, then those files can be moved backed in,
>patched, and so forth.
>
>Especially since the drop-in tree already requires that it is applied
>against a stock kernel version, we don't lose out on anything here.
>
>> This is because treelink.sh can not remove any files in stock kernel.
>>
>Again, most of these useless files will be removed from mainline, so
>there's nothing to worry about here.
Well, I know what drop-in tree is. And I think it's something inconvenient
on some situation.
(1) There seems no simple way to see which files should be removed from the stock kernel,
so it's a bit hard to create complete patch against stock kernel from drop-in tree.
(2) We can not automatically detect if these incorrect files are included in some source file by mistake,
because compiler may not complain.
(3) Some one who want to analyze the kernel source of sh-port might be confused by these useless files.
(4) Once kernel maintainer synchronized stock kernel to our CVS tree, should we remove almost all files
from CVS tree ?, and soon in the next kernel version, should some files be restored and modified ?
Do you really want to do this ?
I don't want to accept these inconveniences. We could maintain whole arch/sh and include/asm-sh
with a few transfer size penalty. It should be much better IMHO.
----
SUGIOKA Toshinobu
|
|
From: Paul M. <le...@li...> - 2003-05-09 02:53:03
|
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:23:06AM +0900, SUGIOKA Toshinobu wrote: > Well, I know what drop-in tree is. And I think it's something inconvenient > on some situation. > (1) There seems no simple way to see which files should be removed from the stock kernel, > so it's a bit hard to create complete patch against stock kernel from drop-in tree. I don't see how this is hard, I usually extract mainline source into linux-2.5.xx.orig and then have a seperate directory where i treelink the drop-in tree over. If I want patches between the drop-in and mainline, I just diff against the .orig and the treelinked tree and add -x CVS to diff, this works fine for me. > (2) We can not automatically detect if these incorrect files are included in some source file by mistake, > because compiler may not complain. > (3) Some one who want to analyze the kernel source of sh-port might be confused by these useless files. > (4) Once kernel maintainer synchronized stock kernel to our CVS tree, should we remove almost all files > from CVS tree ?, and soon in the next kernel version, should some files be restored and modified ? > Do you really want to do this ? > That was my original intent. But I have scripts that deal with most of this for me, so for instance if I go to apply a patch over the drop-in tree, stock files are copied out from mainline tree before patch is run. Either way, most of the "useless" files in mainline should be gone shortly, since I just synced with mainline a little while ago. > I don't want to accept these inconveniences. We could maintain whole arch/sh and include/asm-sh > with a few transfer size penalty. It should be much better IMHO. > I suppose its not a big deal either way, the size is pretty minimalistic. If entire arch/sh and include/asm-sh is more convenient, then we can certainly leave it that way as well. (At present there shouldn't be too many files missing). |
|
From: SUGIOKA T. <su...@it...> - 2003-05-09 03:13:20
|
At 21:52 03/05/08 -0500, Paul Mundt <le...@li...> wrote: >On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:23:06AM +0900, SUGIOKA Toshinobu wrote: >> Well, I know what drop-in tree is. And I think it's something inconvenient >> on some situation. >> (1) There seems no simple way to see which files should be removed from >the stock kernel, >> so it's a bit hard to create complete patch against stock kernel from >drop-in tree. > >I don't see how this is hard, I usually extract mainline source into >linux-2.5.xx.orig and then have a seperate directory where i treelink >the drop-in tree over. If I want patches between the drop-in and >mainline, I just diff against the .orig and the treelinked tree and add >-x CVS to diff, this works fine for me. I mean that unnecessary files are not removed by the patch which is created by this procedure. ---- SUGIOKA Toshinobu |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X