On 2012-07-17 19:34, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 17 July 2012 18:03, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >> On 2012-07-17 18:41, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Rather than hardcoding the list of architectures in the kernel >>> header update script, just import headers for every architecture >>> which supports KVM. This reduces the number of QEMU files which >>> need to be updated to add support for a new KVM architecture. >>> It also means we won't break if the kernel drops support for >>> an architecture in the future. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> I'd like this for ARM, obviously. NB that this change will mean we'll >>> pick up the ia64 kvm headers next time somebody does a kernel header >>> update; this seems harmless (and perhaps even useful?). ia64 'make >>> headers_install' is a bit noisy as of 3.5-rc5 but succeeds anyway. >> >> IA64 KVM support is dead and may be removed at some point from the >> kernel. What about blacklisting it here already to avoid that noise? > > It's only noisy for the developer who runs the script, and if
Developers are also human that may hate seeing this mess. :) > we blacklist it then we'll have to update the script again to > remove it from the blacklist when it finally dies. We /can/ clean this up then, but there will be no urgent need. > > I don't feel very strongly about it, though, so I can add an > > # Blacklist architectures which have KVM headers but are actually dead > if [ "$arch" = "ia64" ]; then > continue > fi > > to the patch if you want. Yes, I would prefer doing this. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux