Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] build: fix clean rule to cover objects in unvisited subdirs

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 09:44 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 01.12.15 at 17:34, <jonathan.creekmore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Dec 1, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > For one build run, yes. But then you can (a) build individual object
> > > files and (b) as mentioned above change configuration (implying
> > > that you know what you're doing). Also you could, using the
> > > example above, do a kexec=y build, then a kexec=n one, then
> > > notice you needed to clean in between, so you then clean using
> > > kexec=n and build again with that option, but cleaning again
> > > would still leave the kexec files around.
> > > 
> > > And btw., we have a similar issue already when you switch
> > > between arches (no cleaning happens cross-arch).
> > 
> > OK, so you are working on a different assumption than I was. I was
> > treating the clean rule as needing to be run when you are wanting to
> > explicitly rebuild all object files needed for the current build 
> > configuration 
> > (i.e., only cleaning files that would be linked into the current
> > hypervisor 
> > build).
> > It sounds like you are expecting the clean rule to clean out all object
> > files no matter whether they are part of the current build
> > configuration
> > or not. 
> > 
> > Working on that assumption, it seems like running a:
> > ÂÂÂÂfind . -name â*.oâ -type f -delete 
> > from the xen/ directory would accomplish that and would be less
> > fragile than trying to grab various different variables and munge
> > them to try to grab all possible .o files specified by the system.
> > Plus,
> > the find command would likely execute quicker. 
> > 
> > Does something like that seem acceptable?
> 
> I can't see an immediate reason why it would not be, as long
> as it's clear that this won't eliminate the need to recurse into
> the subdirectories. But I'd certainly recommend to wait for
> other feedback (namely by other hypervisor maintainers)
> before you go that route.
> 
> Also please note that -delete is not a standard primary, so
> would need replacing.
> 
> Also the same global approach could then perhaps be used to
> remove all the .*.d files.

I can't think of a good reason not to do both of these.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel