Re: [PATCH 00/10] merge_config misc reworks and testcases

From: Bruce Ashfield
Date: Wed Oct 28 2015 - 02:20:13 EST

On 10/28/2015 01:02 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 09:42:01AM +0900, Olof Johansson wrote:

Somewhat wide distribution list here, since I've added everyone who's
touched the script, with the presumption that those have been the major
users of it. Please make sure none of these changes break your use cases.

+Bruce. I think you were going to test these with the linux-yocto tooling. Did
you get a chance to run that test? I'd like your thoughts on the two comments

I ran some initial tests, but I didn't end up doing a full
update due to other constraints.

But in the next few weeks, I can do that update and full run.

I've done some reworks of I was quite hesitant to start
this since there are no good ways to see if your changes break others
or not, so the first thing I did was to add some tests. I know this is
highly unorthodox so try not to panic. :-)

As far as what this series does is:

- Adds a way to pass in CONFIG_FOO=<value> on the command line, it gets
treated as a single-entry fragment file

- The script now prints the warnings on stderr, and returns non-0 when
something is encountered

This one might impact linux-yocto usage, Bruce? That said, it seems like the
right thing to do. So I'd still like to see it go in, but we may need to plan to
update the dependent tooling to use it.

I don't directly let the merge_config output be visible, but capture it
and then do more processing later. So while this may mean that I have
to update some wrappers to capture stderr, it shouldn't be a big deal.

- Optionally, it'll also return non-0 when a redundant entry is found. I
presumed people rely on -r not being a failure so I did this separately

- CONFIG_FOO=n and "# CONFIG_FOO is not set" is now treated the same,
and using the former doesn't cause an invalid warning when the results
are checked at the end

- Slightly odd things happened if a fragment contains the same option
twice: It'd produce a warning that was malformed. Now just ignore that
and use only the latest value of said option.

This one will likely impact usage as well. linux-yocto does want to report when
there is an override, not as an error, but for informational purposes - "Where
does my option get clobbered?"

I haven't looked at the patches yet (and I will shortly), but if that
is within a single fragment, I can live with it going away, since it is
easy to check that outside of the merge script.

But if this is a redefinition between fragments, that's something different
and something that I capture and report to users, and yes, I
currently take it from the output of the merge_config run. If it goes
away, I'd have to recreate it somehow.

So if this can at least be maintained as enabled via a parameter, that
would be be ideal. Otherwise, I'll have to recreate the output some
other way.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at