11:43 a.m.
Petr,
Are the sources different the openSUSE patches?
Dave
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Petr Tesarik
<ptesarik(a)suse.cz> </div><div>Date:09/04/2014 12:27 PM (GMT-05:00)
</div><div>To: Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com>
</div><div>Cc: "Discussion list for crash utility usage, maintenance and
development" <crash-utility(a)redhat.com> </div><div>Subject: Re:
[Crash-utility] Heads-up re: ppc64le support in crash-7.0.8 </div><div>
</div>On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Petr, Michel, et al,
Hi Dave et al.,
FWIW the upcoming SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 release will ship a
crash utility that works on ppc64le, and I think IBM has already tested
it successfully. I'll see how I can make the latest sources available on
a public site.
Petr Tesarik
I'm currently working on adding ppc64le support for the next
upstream
crash release. I'm working from a Fedora bugzilla filed by Michel Normand,
where he that applied the "crash-gdb-7.6.series" set of patches from the
openSUSE
distribution. Thanks Michel for doing the initial legwork using the Fedora
tree.
For the upstream crash utility repo, I do not want to carry the set of 9 patches
individually, but similar to the singular gdb-7.6.patch, I plan to concatenate
them into a singular gdb-7.6-ppc64le-support.patch.
Ideally the contents of the 9 patch files could be added to the gdb-7.6.patch,
and I may do that in the future.
However, just the crash-gdb-7.6-bound_minimal_symbol.patch in the 9-part set
is so large and intrusive (touching dozens of arch-neutral files) that
I am paranoid about breaking something, or altering behavior for the
other architectures. So I plan to take a more cautious route for now,
and only apply the gdb-7.6-ppc64le-support.patch if the build host is
ppc64le.
Thanks,
Dave
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
1:19 a.m.
New subject: Heads-up re: ppc64le support in crash-7.0.8
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:43:01 -0400
Dave Anderson <anderson(a)prospeed.net> wrote:
Petr,
Are the sources different the openSUSE patches?
Dave,
I've just cheked it, and they haven't changed. So, we're talking about
crash-gdb-*.patch files from:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Kernel:kdump/crash
I took these patches directly from our gdb package, which means they
should appear in a future gdb release, and then we'll get them for free
by upgrading the embedded gdb in crash.
Please also see my comments below.
> Petr, Michel, et al,
Hi Dave et al.,
FWIW the upcoming SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 release will ship a
crash utility that works on ppc64le, and I think IBM has already tested
it successfully. I'll see how I can make the latest sources available on
a public site.
Petr Tesarik
> I'm currently working on adding ppc64le support for the next upstream
> crash release. I'm working from a Fedora bugzilla filed by Michel Normand,
> where he that applied the "crash-gdb-7.6.series" set of patches from the
openSUSE
> distribution. Thanks Michel for doing the initial legwork using the Fedora
> tree.
>
> For the upstream crash utility repo, I do not want to carry the set of 9 patches
> individually, but similar to the singular gdb-7.6.patch, I plan to concatenate
> them into a singular gdb-7.6-ppc64le-support.patch.
Why? AFAICS it will only make rebasing to a different gdb version
harder.
> Ideally the contents of the 9 patch files could be added to the
gdb-7.6.patch,
> and I may do that in the future.
I feel quite the opposite. The existing gdb-7.6.patch, which is always
such a pain to port when the gdb version changes, should be split up
into individual logical changes, and applied much like my 9 patches.
That way I can use quilt (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt) to
update the patch series when necesssary. I definitely find it easier to
update a number of smaller patches one by one than trying to update one
huge patch.
Just my two eurocents,
Petr Tesarik
> However, just the crash-gdb-7.6-bound_minimal_symbol.patch in
the 9-part set
> is so large and intrusive (touching dozens of arch-neutral files) that
> I am paranoid about breaking something, or altering behavior for the
> other architectures. So I plan to take a more cautious route for now,
> and only apply the gdb-7.6-ppc64le-support.patch if the build host is
> ppc64le.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
8:44 a.m.
New subject: Heads-up re: ppc64le support in crash-7.0.8
----- Original Message -----
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:43:01 -0400
Dave Anderson <anderson(a)prospeed.net> wrote:
> Petr,
>
> Are the sources different the openSUSE patches?
Dave
I've just cheked it, and they haven't changed. So, we're talking about
crash-gdb-*.patch files from:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Kernel:kdump/crash
Correct -- Michel indirectly referenced this tree page which appears
to have the same stuff:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Factory:PowerPC/crash
I took these patches directly from our gdb package, which means they
should appear in a future gdb release, and then we'll get them for free
by upgrading the embedded gdb in crash.
And thanks for that -- I appreciate that very much...
Please also see my comments below.
> > Petr, Michel, et al,
>
> Hi Dave et al.,
>
> FWIW the upcoming SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 release will ship a
> crash utility that works on ppc64le, and I think IBM has already tested
> it successfully. I'll see how I can make the latest sources available on
> a public site.
>
> Petr Tesarik
>
> > I'm currently working on adding ppc64le support for the next upstream
> > crash release. I'm working from a Fedora bugzilla filed by Michel
Normand,
> > where he that applied the "crash-gdb-7.6.series" set of patches from
the openSUSE
> > distribution. Thanks Michel for doing the initial legwork using the Fedora
> > tree.
> >
> > For the upstream crash utility repo, I do not want to carry the set of 9
patches
> > individually, but similar to the singular gdb-7.6.patch, I plan to concatenate
> > them into a singular gdb-7.6-ppc64le-support.patch.
Why? AFAICS it will only make rebasing to a different gdb version harder.
Why? It would just work automatically because the ppc64le patch wouldn't get
applied by the Makefile when the gdb version is updated.
> > Ideally the contents of the 9 patch files could be added to
the gdb-7.6.patch,
> > and I may do that in the future.
I feel quite the opposite. The existing gdb-7.6.patch, which is always
such a pain to port when the gdb version changes, should be split up
into individual logical changes, and applied much like my 9 patches.
Actually I never felt that way.
Rebasing is a pain regardless whether the patches in the gdb-7.6.patch are
split out or not. Each patch-within-the-patch has to be checked individually
regardless whether it's a separate file or not. The majority of the individual
gdb-x.y.patch patches need to be forward-ported to do the "crash merge"
operation, with only a handful of them appearing in the rebased gdb.
And given that the ppc64le series should all appear in the next gdb rebase,
I will keep them in the separate file.
That way I can use quilt (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/quilt)
to
update the patch series when necesssary. I definitely find it easier to
update a number of smaller patches one by one than trying to update one
huge patch.
Yeah but it's fairly rare that the embedded gdb gets patched, so it shouldn't
be a problem. This is a fairly unique scenario, i.e., where it's not really
introducing support for a brand new architecture. And any ppc64le-specific
modifications can easily be appended to the new patch file. Each of the
9 patches (and their commit header info) are clearly indicated in the
concatenation.
Just my two eurocents,
Point taken. But I just don't want to clutter the upstream sources with
a bunch of patch files. When the next gdb rebase happens, they all go away
like a bad dream.
Dave
3735
days inactive
3736
days old
devel@lists.crash-utility.osci.io
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dave Anderson -
Dave Anderson -
Petr Tesarik