On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 09:44 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 01.12.15 at 17:34, <jonathan.creekm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 1, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > > > > > For one build run, yes. But then you can (a) build individual object > > > files and (b) as mentioned above change configuration (implying > > > that you know what you're doing). Also you could, using the > > > example above, do a kexec=y build, then a kexec=n one, then > > > notice you needed to clean in between, so you then clean using > > > kexec=n and build again with that option, but cleaning again > > > would still leave the kexec files around. > > > > > > And btw., we have a similar issue already when you switch > > > between arches (no cleaning happens cross-arch). > > > > OK, so you are working on a different assumption than I was. I was > > treating the clean rule as needing to be run when you are wanting to > > explicitly rebuild all object files needed for the current build > > configuration > > (i.e., only cleaning files that would be linked into the current > > hypervisor > > build). > > It sounds like you are expecting the clean rule to clean out all object > > files no matter whether they are part of the current build > > configuration > > or not. > > > > Working on that assumption, it seems like running a: > > find . -name “*.o” -type f -delete > > from the xen/ directory would accomplish that and would be less > > fragile than trying to grab various different variables and munge > > them to try to grab all possible .o files specified by the system. > > Plus, > > the find command would likely execute quicker. > > > > Does something like that seem acceptable? > > I can't see an immediate reason why it would not be, as long > as it's clear that this won't eliminate the need to recurse into > the subdirectories. But I'd certainly recommend to wait for > other feedback (namely by other hypervisor maintainers) > before you go that route. > > Also please note that -delete is not a standard primary, so > would need replacing. > > Also the same global approach could then perhaps be used to > remove all the .*.d files.
I can't think of a good reason not to do both of these. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
