Hi! Am 24.04.2015 um 10:22 schrieb Hajime Tazaki: >> You *really* need to shape up wrt the build process. > > at the moment, the implementation of libos can't automate to > follow such changes in the build process. but good news is > it's a trivial task to follow up the latest function. > > my observation on this manual follow up since around 3.7 > kernel (2.5 yrs ago) is that these changes mostly happened > during merge-window of each new version, and the fix only > takes a couple of hours at maximum. > > I think I can survive with these changes but I'd like to ask > broader opinions. > > > one more question: > > I'd really like to have a suggestion on which tree I should > base for libos tree. > > I'm proposing a patchset to arnd/asm-generic tree (which I > believe the base tree for new arch/), while the patchset is > tested with davem/net-next tree because right now libos is > only for net/. > > shall I propose a patchset based on Linus' tree instead ?
I'd suggest the following: Maintain LibOS in your git tree and follow Linus' tree. Make sure that all kernel releases build and work. This way you can experiment with automation and other stuff. If it works well you can ask for mainline inclusion after a few kernel releases. Your git history will show how much maintenance burden LibOS has and how much with every merge window breaks and needs manual fixup. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
