On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 09:07:23 +0100 Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/01/19 20:26, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 18:19, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I'd prefer the shell script part and the new vhost_types header which > >> are actually reviewable to be split out to a separate patch. > > > > I agree that shell script changes should be their own patch. > > My view is that a header-update commit should be entirely > > and nothing but the automatically generated results of > > running scripts/update-linux-headers.sh, with a commit > > message that says "Generated by running update-linux-headers.sh > > on upstream kernel commit xxxx". > > The problem with this approach is that the old script does not work with > the new commit and the new script does not work with the old commit. > Doing the update in the same commit as the script update means that it's > clear from the commit message on which Linux commit you should run it > (though in this case I should have specified 4.21-rc1 or 5.0-rc1). In this case, just note that in the change log? I'd prefer to do it in a single commit if there are dependencies. > Another way would be to make Linux a submodule. Then you'd upgrade the > submodule and the script in one commit, and then generate the headers at > compile-time or release-time. This however wouldn't be as nice for > users of the git repo. That's the reason why I went for the single > commit, but of course I can split it and will in v2. TBH: Just say no to that submodule idea :) The need to adapt the script is rare enough for a simple note in the change log to be sufficient if the change can't be split out.