Re: [PATCH 3/4] build: also check for empty .bss.* in .o -> .init.o conversion

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/08/2020 16:40, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 07.08.2020 17:12, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 07/08/2020 11:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 06.08.2020 18:16, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/2020 10:05, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Can't we remove all of this by having CONFIG_XEN_PE expressed/selectable
>>>> properly in Kconfig, and gathering all the objects normally, rather than
>>>> bodging all of common/efi/ through arch/efi/ ?
>>> _If_ we settle on Kconfig to be allowed to check compiler (and linker)
>>> features, then yes. This continues to be a pending topic though, so
>>> the switch can't be made like this at this point in time. (It could be
>>> made a Kconfig item now - which, when enabled, implies the assertion
>>> that a capable tool chain is in use.)
>> I am still of the opinion that nothing needs discussing, but you are
>> obviously not.
>>
>> Please raise this as a topic and lets discuss it, because it has a
>> meaningful impacting on a large number of pending series.
> Preferably I would have put this on this month's community meeting
> agenda, but I'll be ooo next week, so that's not going to help, I'm
> afraid. I guess I should put it up in email form when I'm back,
> albeit I wasn't thinking it should need to be me to start the
> discussion. Instead my view was that such a discussion should (have
> been, now after-the-fact) be started by whoever wants to introduce
> a new feature.

It would have been better to raise a concern/objection before you
committed the feature.

It was a very clear intent of upgrading Kconfig and switching to Kbuild,
to clean up the total and chronic mess we call a build system.  It has
been discussed multiple times in person, and on xen-devel, without
apparent objection at the time.

The state of 4.14 and later is that we have the feature, and it is
already in use, with a lot more use expected to continue fixing the
build system.

You are currently blocking work to fix aspects of the build system based
on a dislike of this feature, *and* expecting someone else to justify
why using this feature as intended is ok in the first place.

I do not consider that a reasonable expectation of how to proceed.

If you wish to undo what was a deliberate intention of the
Kconfig/Kbuild work, then it is you who must start the conversation on
why we should revert the improvements.

~Andrew