[cgl_discussion] KGDB and process issues
tariq.shureih at intel.com
Thu Sep 5 16:58:06 PDT 2002
OK, sorry for not responding earlier, I've been in meetings most of the day.
So, for those who have not read the developer's guide and who are new to
this, the process is as follows:
Patch is developed against pristine kernel (2.4.18 is the case now).
Copy of this patch/diff is placed in a directory corresponding to the
feature name under the "patches" directory in cvs. (patches/ngpt for
Now on to Integrating the feature/patch into the progressive tree:
The developer attempts to patch the tip of the kernel tree with his/her
patch using patch --dry-run -p? < patches/my_patch.diff.
If there are no conflicts:
Then the patch is applied (remove the --dry-run flag) directly on the
The kernel is compiled, installed and tested for a minimum of booting the
system and getting a prompt.
Then the tree will have to be tagged with
before__my_patch_version_1__CGLE_001", for example, which stands for
Then the command "cvs -n ci" is run to see if there are any new files that
need to be added to the tree.
If there are new files created by the patch, the need to be added to cvs ,
personally I always use the -kb flag with cvs add.
Then another tag is applied and it's the
Then you apply the "AFTER" tag as well.
If there are conflicts, the patch can not be applied and checked in until
all conflicts have been resolved. That is managed by the
developer/maintainer and in coordination with the other maintainers if
needed. Bottom line is you can't check the patch is if there are conflicts
or if it doesn't build and boot the kernel.
Now, the question is, should we preserve the specific tweaks done in order
to fix the patch conflict?
My opinion is no.
First of all, these are, most of the time, CGLE tree and integration
specific fixes such as contextual modification, line movement, etc. which
don't impact the feature.
Second, even if we had to modify another patch's code in order to make the
new patch work, I think it's still an implementation detail and not a
specifications or design change and thus need not be reflected in the
"pristine" version of the patch.
The other question is, what about bug fixes and updates to an existing
feature which are not a result of patch conflicts?
Those can only be applied or added to the CGLE tree in the for of a delta
patch. In other words, only the new modifications or bug fixes can be in
the new patch and a copy of the pristine version of the patch (again the
delta patch) should be added a separate file in the "patches" directory.
Finally, and I know this is a lengthy email. Louis's original email has a
lot or merit, however, this is not something Integration can do about since
it's a natural occurrence even in normal patch conflict resolution a single
developer may have to do.
Makes sense? I am very open to modification and enhancements. Remember,
this is not carved in stone, it's just the best way we've figured so far to
make a project this large with so many players and hands in the code to
Sorry, this email is in HTML :-P
From: george anzinger [mailto:george at mvista.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 4:00 PM
To: Khalid Aziz
Cc: andyp at osdl.org; Tim Anderson; Zhuang, Louis; cgl_discussion at osdl.org;
developer at carrierlinux.org
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] KGDB and process issues
Khalid Aziz wrote:
> george anzinger wrote:
> > This, WAS the way. As I understand the new rules we are not
> > tagging the tree at all.
> Not so. Check the section "Checking in a patch and including it in
> build" on page 16 of CGLE Developer Guide which requires tagging the
> tree before and after commiting a patch.
Hm, sort of conflicts with what Tariq said yesterday, but
then he did say to read the rules..
Still, what of my proposal?
>From Tariq's email of yesterday:
We recommend you use ".diff" files of your code ONLY and
apply it using the patch command to the CGLE tree.
A copy of this patch/diff file needs to be, as always,
placed in the "patches" directory under the corresponding
You don't need to tag kernel patches or kernel source after
patching with anything. Please follow the guidelines
George Anzinger george at mvista.com
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion