On 06/17/2012 07:01 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this is
right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
Applied.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
---
v1 -> v2
- Remove unnecessar
On 2012-06-18 14:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 04:13 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-18 02:32, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Am 18.06.2012 02:01, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>>> This will work technically but I still feel this is wrong semantically.
>>> The pre-Paolo and current way is pi
On 06/18/2012 04:13 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-06-18 02:32, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 02:01, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
This will work technically but I still feel this is wrong semantically.
The pre-Paolo and current way is picking specific files from the hw/kvm/
directory. Your chan
On 18 June 2012 12:35, Andreas Färber wrote:
> But the point is that hw/foo/ is required for the new Makefile system,
> so we have the empty folders anyway, whereas putting target-specific
> stuff into, e.g., hw/apic/ will not solve the dependency issue that I
> tracked down here.
Why should our
Am 18.06.2012 12:56, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 18 June 2012 11:42, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 18.06.2012 11:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>>> (Does architecture-specific separation make much sense in general?
>>> Not all devices are architecture-specific. I'd have thought that
>>> a functional spl
On 18 June 2012 11:42, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 11:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> (Does architecture-specific separation make much sense in general?
>> Not all devices are architecture-specific. I'd have thought that
>> a functional split eg timer/serial/usb like the linux kernel layou
Am 18.06.2012 11:31, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 18 June 2012 10:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-06-18 02:32, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> This will work technically but I still feel this is wrong semantically.
>>> The pre-Paolo and current way is picking specific files from the hw/kvm/
>>> director
On 18 June 2012 10:13, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2012-06-18 02:32, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> This will work technically but I still feel this is wrong semantically.
>> The pre-Paolo and current way is picking specific files from the hw/kvm/
>> directory. Your change above implies that in hw/kvm/ only
On 2012-06-18 02:32, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 02:01, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this
>> is
>> right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
>> ---
>> v1 -> v
Am 18.06.2012 02:01, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this
> is
> right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
>
> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
> ---
> v1 -> v2
> - Remove unnecessary includes (Andreas)
> - A
On 06/17/2012 02:53 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 20:46, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
On 06/17/2012 12:00 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
If using hw/kvm/*.d instead, it actually works. ;)
We can also just add a hw/kvm/Makefile.objs and then add kvm/ to the
subdir rules. Seems to fix the pro
I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this is
right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
---
v1 -> v2
- Remove unnecessary includes (Andreas)
- Add a sub makefile for hw/kvm (Andreas)
---
Makefile
Am 17.06.2012 20:46, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> On 06/17/2012 12:00 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 17.06.2012 18:23, schrieb Andreas Färber:
>>> I've tested with just
>>> +$(eval -include $(wildcard $1/*.d))
>>> and did
>>> $ touch include/qemu/object.h
>>>
>>> From what I see, using Anthony's or
On 06/17/2012 12:00 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 18:23, schrieb Andreas Färber:
I've tested with just
+$(eval -include $(wildcard $1/*.d))
and did
$ touch include/qemu/object.h
From what I see, using Anthony's original patch plus the modification
above (not the other ones), {i386,x8
Am 17.06.2012 18:23, schrieb Andreas Färber:
> I've tested with just
> +$(eval -include $(wildcard $1/*.d))
> and did
> $ touch include/qemu/object.h
>
> From what I see, using Anthony's original patch plus the modification
> above (not the other ones), {i386,x86_64}-softmmu/hw/kvm/apic.o is still
Am 17.06.2012 17:20, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this
>> is
>> right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
>> ---
>
Am 17.06.2012 16:57, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
> I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this
> is
> right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
>
> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
> ---
> Makefile |4 ++--
> rules.mak |1 +
> 2 files ch
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this
> is
> right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
>
> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
> ---
> Makefile | 4 ++--
> rules.mak | 1 +
>
I think I understand enough of what's going on in these rules to ensure this is
right. But I could certainly use a second or third opinion...
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori
---
Makefile |4 ++--
rules.mak |1 +
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/M
19 matches
Mail list logo
