On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 15:24:23 -0500 Scott Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 15:18 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 19:16:30 -0500 > > Scott Wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Reduce code duplication and take advantage of bisection logic > > > improvements by calling config-bisect.pl. > > > > > > The output of make oldconfig is now copied directly to the desired > > > file, > > > rather than doing assign_configs+save_config, in order to preserve > > > the > > > ordering so that diffing the configs at the end will provide useful > > > output. > > > > The reason I never did this, was that I copy ktest.pl all over the > > place :-/ I need it to be a stand alone. I don't copy config-bisect > > around. Not sure how to deal with this. > > By "this" I assume you mean using the external config-bisect code, > rather than the part about copying oldconfig output? > > The options I can see are to copy both files as a group (possibly making > that easier by renaming config-bisect.pl to ktest-conf-bisect.pl, so you > can "cp tools/testing/ktest/ktest*.pl <dest>"), or just living with code > duplication. In a previous discussion you suggested you preferred that > latter option, though in that case the config bisect logic changes > should ideally be done before the fork. I don't want to rename it. I like the simply "config-bisect.pl" name. > > It should also be noted that ktest.pl only depends on config-bisect.pl > if a config bisect is being performed, so other ktest.pl functions still > work standalone. I thought about this too, and may be able to live with that. Perhaps we should make the config-bisect internals into something that can be a perl library, and be able to place that someplace that both could use? -- Steve
