[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH trivial] configure: explicitly di
From: |
Michael Tokarev |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH trivial] configure: explicitly disable virtfs if softmmu=no |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:19:20 +0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Icedove/17.0 |
11.06.2013 21:23, M. Mohan Kumar wrote:
> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:
>
> How about this approach?
Well, this is definitely wrong :)
> -if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then
> - if test "$virtfs" != no ; then
> +
> +if test "$virtfs" != no ; then
> + if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then
> if test "$cap" = yes && test "$linux" = yes && test "$attr" = yes ; then
> virtfs=yes
> tools="$tools fsdev/virtfs-proxy-helper\$(EXESUF)"
> @@ -3415,6 +3416,12 @@ if test "$softmmu" = yes ; then
> fi
> virtfs=no
> fi
> + else
> + if test "$virtfs" = yes; then
> + error_exit "VirtFS is supported only on Linux and requires softmmu"
> + else
> + virtfs=no
> + fi
> fi
> if [ "$linux" = "yes" -o "$bsd" = "yes" -o "$solaris" = "yes" ] ; then
> if [ "$guest_agent" = "yes" ]; then
Now this "if [ $linux..." test is only checked
if $virtfs != no. Before, it was checked when
$softmmu != no...
FWIW, I still don't understand what Peter Maydell dislikes
in a simplest case I posted initially, where we merely ignore
(disable) virtfs in case !softmmu. We should probably do the
same for alot of other features which makes sense only if
softmmu==yes, and omit many configure tests which are still
done even if softmmu is disabled, but that's a different
patch for sure. Maube we should separate out this last linux|bsd|solaris
test and add another if softmmu there, for readability, so that
disabling of virtfs will be closer to other virtfs tests.
I applied my initial patch to our debian tree to fix build
failure for now, because else it fails during build.
Thanks,
/mjt