On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:47:44 +0200
Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:35:30PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> >
> > Being able to run 'silentoldconfig' with an existing .config has been
> > immensely useful, especially for automated builds. If the kernel code
> > changes in an incompatible manner without the associated .config being
> > updated, the build will fail and call attention to the need for an update.
> >
> > AFAICT, there is nothing similar when using *_defconfig; one must copy
> > a .config manually, and then run silentoldconfig. Simply running the
> > associated _defconfig will quietly update the config (which may silently
> > drop config options). This patch adds a *_silentdefconfig target, with
> > semantics similar to silentoldconfig. It will take the defconfig from
> > arch/$(SRCARCH)/configs/$x_defconfig, check for changes, and if there are
> > none, write out a .config. If there have been changes and stdin is
> > valid, it will prompt for updates. If there have been changes and
> > stdin is not valid, it will bail out with an error.
>
> I like what you achieve by this patchset.
> But I do not agree on the naming you chose.
Yeah, I don't really like the name either, but I wasn't sure what to call
it. I want behavior that is similar to silentoldconfig, but not because
I want it to not be chatty, but because I want it to fail if there have
been changes and there's no tty (ie, !valid_stdin). So basically,
silentdefoldconfig or something ridiculously long like that. :)
>
> We have today:
> oldconfig => very chatty
> silentoldconfig => Asks only relevant questions
> defconfig => silent
>
> [I plan one day to make oldconfig behave like
> silentoldconfig and drop the chatty mode]
>
> And I see why you went for the name *_silentdefconfig
> But in reality what we want to say is that we want to
> interactively apply the _defconfig.
Do I? I'm not sure what you mean by "interactively apply". I want
to non-interactively apply the defconfig, and fail if prompting is
required (rather than just choosing default values).
Perhaps _silentoldconfig would've been a better name. Actually, I'm
pretty sure that it is.
>
> So if we could come up with something where we told
> that we want to interactively use i386_defconfig
> then the users would hopefully be less confused.
>
> I have considered a few way to do so:
>
> a) make I=1 i386_defconfig
> b) make i_i386_defconfig
> c) make ii386_defconfig
> d) make i386_config
>
> And none of these are actually good.
> Any better ideas here?
Sounds like you're saying that you want:
make oldconfig V=1 (chatty, prompt if possible or fail)
make oldconfig V=0 (silentoldconfig, prompt if possible or fail)
make defconfig V=1 (chatty, use defaults)
make defconfig V=0 (silent, use defaults)
make i386_oldconfig V=1 (chatty, prompt if possible or fail)
make i386_oldconfig V=0 (silent, prompt if possible or fail)
make i386_defconfig V=1 (chatty, use defaults)
make i386_defconfig V=0 (silent, use defaults)
Does that sound right? Would using the build system's verbose variable
work? If so, what should the default be?
>
> See a few comments below.
>
> Sam
>
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Makefile | 4 ++++
> > scripts/kconfig/Makefile | 3 +++
> > scripts/kconfig/conf.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index e77149e..c264f7f 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -1225,6 +1225,10 @@ help:
> > $(foreach b, $(boards), \
> > printf " %-24s - Build for %s\\n" $(b) $(subst _defconfig,,$(b));) \
> > echo '')
> > + @$(if $(boards), \
> > + $(foreach b, $(boards), \
> > + printf " %-24s - Quiet Build for %s\\n" $(subst _defconfig,_silentdefconfig,$(b)) $(subst _defconfig,,$(b));) \
> > + echo '')
> This is the first time we use printf in the top-level Makefile.
> Most likely because I never use printf in my shell scripts
> so I guess this is not a problem.
Eh? There's already a printf, this just adds an additional printf.
>
> >
> > @echo ' make V=0|1 [targets] 0 => quiet build (default), 1 => verbose build'
> > @echo ' make V=2 [targets] 2 => give reason for rebuild of target'
> > diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/Makefile b/scripts/kconfig/Makefile
> > index ce7d754..19ba562 100644
> > --- a/scripts/kconfig/Makefile
> > +++ b/scripts/kconfig/Makefile
> > @@ -72,6 +72,9 @@ endif
> > %_defconfig: $(obj)/conf
> > $(Q)$< -d -D arch/$(SRCARCH)/configs/$@ $(Kconfig)
> >
> > +%_silentdefconfig: $(obj)/conf
> > + $(Q)$< -s -o -D arch/$(SRCARCH)/configs/$(subst _silentdefconfig,_defconfig,$@) $(Kconfig)
> > +
> > # Help text used by make help
> > help:
> > @echo ' config - Update current config utilising a line-oriented program'
> > diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/conf.c b/scripts/kconfig/conf.c
> > index 9a27638..264eee9 100644
> > --- a/scripts/kconfig/conf.c
> > +++ b/scripts/kconfig/conf.c
> > @@ -558,7 +558,8 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> > }
> > break;
> > case ask_new:
> > - if (silent_mode && stat(".config", &tmpstat)) {
> > + if (!defconfig_file && silent_mode &&
> > + stat(".config", &tmpstat)) {
>
> This belong in a preparation patch. We should handle this
> also if we do not do so from the Makefile.
I'm not sure what you mean. This isn't really preparation for this patch;
it's just ensuring that we can use '-o' and '-D' together without
running a check for .config. Basically, if '-o' is specified but '-D'
is not, check for .config (and fail if it doesn't exist. If '-o' and '-D'
are both specified, we don't care about .config.
>
> > printf(_("***\n"
> > "*** You have not yet configured your kernel!\n"
> > "*** (missing kernel .config file)\n"
> > @@ -570,7 +571,15 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> > }
> > /* fall through */
> > case ask_all:
> > - conf_read(NULL);
> > + if (defconfig_file) {
> > + if (conf_read(defconfig_file)) {
> > + printf(_("***\n*** Can't find default "
> > + "configuration \"%s\"!\n***\n"),
> > + defconfig_file);
> > + exit(1);
> > + }
> > + } else
> > + conf_read(NULL);
>
> Does conf_read() fail if we use the NULL argument?
> I assume not so the above code can be simplified and
> should also be in the same preparational patch as the change above.
I don't believe it fails, it uses a default config name. I'm not sure
if it fails if _that_ file isn't found, though. I can't make much
sense of the symbol stuff..
We definitely _do_ want to fail if conf_read(defconfig_file) can't find
the file, and we definitely don't want to fail if conf_read(NULL) can't
open the file.
>
> Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
