Re: [RFC PATCH v3] automation: add linker symbol name script

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 26 Jul 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.07.2024 21:01, victorm.lira@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Victor Lira <victorm.lira@xxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Requested-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Victor Lira <victorm.lira@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Looks okay to me now, just that I don't see ...
> 
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/automation/eclair_analysis/linker-symbols.sh
> > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
> > +#!/bin/sh
> > +
> > +# Stop immediately if any executed command has exit status different from 
> > 0.
> > +set -e
> > +
> > +# Extract linker symbol names (except those starting with ".") from 
> > assignments.
> > +
> > +script_name=$(basename "$0")
> > +script_dir="$(
> > +  cd "$(dirname "$0")"
> > +  echo "${PWD}"
> > +)"
> > +src_dir="${script_dir}/../.."
> > +
> > +fatal() {
> > +  echo "${script_name}: $*" >&2
> > +  exit 1
> > +}
> > +
> > +usage() {
> > +  fatal "Usage: ${script_name} <arm|x86>"
> > +}
> > +
> > +if [ $# -ne 1 ]; then
> > +  usage
> > +fi
> > +
> > +filepath="${src_dir}/xen/arch/${1}/xen.lds"
> > +
> > +if [ ! -f "$filepath" ]; then
> > +  fatal "Could not find ${1} linker script. Must be run after arm/x86 
> > build."
> 
> ... why you have "arm/x86" there when the message already includes ${1}.
> That'll simply go stale (and unnoticed) when PPC and/or RISC-V make further
> progress. Actually in usage() I'm similarly uncertain you want to mention
> the two architectures explicitly. Just say <arch> there? Happy to make
> adjustments while committing, so long as you agree.

I made the suggested changes on commit adding my R-b