Message-ID: <CAK7LNATaDqZdOF_KK4z+mPz7FO6gPFCWCviamzR8TmDdpaXYmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:39:15 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        Boris Kolpackov <boris@...esynthesis.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>,
        Patrick Franz <patfra71@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kconfig as a git subtree on Linux

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:25 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> I'd like to propose we discuss the possibility of taking kconfig and
> making it a git subtree under the Linux kernel. This would allow
> other projects outside of the Linux kernel to be able to update their
> own copy / fork of kconfig in a jiffie *very* easily.
>
> Why? kconfig has far outlived its own purpose as a modeling variablity
> language hack on the Linux kernel, and *is* forked and *used* by *many*
> projects, to the point I think ignoring its use outside of the Linux
> kernel is doing a disservice to its own growth. Counting just personal
> projects I have 3 projects which use kconfig alone. Last time I counted
> about 30 or so external projects. I'm confident this is a shy number
> of today's reality.
>
> Yes this does beg the question, that if this is done, can / should
> this be considered elsewhere. And yes, I'd like to hear the rants
> about why this would be a completely unacceptable practice *at all*.
>
> I've been using git subtrees now for another project and I'm *very*
> happy with it so far. It lets me keep a project with some code on
> its own git tree, and then multiple third party trees can embrace
> it, and decide to update later whenever they want. An example is the
> update_ssh_config [0] python script which I use on kdevops [1] for
> vagrant, but since it is also used for terraform and terraform uses
> modules I ended up sharing the code for terraform for its own
> terrarorm module [2] [3]. I do most development and unit testing
> on the main update_ssh_config git tree, and when I want to integrate
> its changes into kdevops I just run:
>
> make refresh
>
> This is because on kdevops I have:
>
> $ cat Makefile.subtrees
> # If you need to use a git subtree, please add it here.
> add-remotes:
>         git remote add update_ssh_config https://github.com/mcgrof/update_ssh_config.git
>
> add-commits:
>         git subtree add --prefix=playbooks/roles/update_ssh_config_vagrant/update_ssh_config update_ssh_config master
>
> refresh:
>         git fetch update_ssh_config git subtree pull --prefix=playbooks/roles/update_ssh_config_vagrant/update_ssh_config update_ssh_config master
>
> Likewise for my terraform module, however there I just have these
> targets on my make Makefile. A person who first git cloned either the
> kdevops tree of the terraform module tree would first have to run the
> targets:
>
>    * make add-remotes
>    * make add-commits
>
> Today's process for updating kconfig on external projects requires
> substrantial manual oversight.
>
> [0] https://github.com/mcgrof/update_ssh_config
> [1] https://github.com/mcgrof/kdevops/
> [2] https://github.com/mcgrof/terraform-kdevops-add-host-ssh-config
> [3] https://registry.terraform.io/modules/mcgrof/add-host-ssh-config/kdevops/latest
>
>   Luis




I want to keep Kconfig in the kernel tree.

Other projects can throw in scripts/kconfig/,
but in some cases, they might need some adjustments
for their use.



Kconfig is almost standalone, but in reality,
there are some interactions between the build system
and kconfig.


I want to reserve the freedom for optimizations
that span across both kbuild and kconfig.

For example,

058507195b534e6a1b3e8bf716b816ecf090c9c3
8b41fc4454e36fbfdbb23f940d023d4dece2de29

If we split Kconfig out as a standalone project,
such optimizations would become difficult.




A long time has passed since the Kconfig introduction, but
the Kconfig implementation is still in an immature state, in my opinion.


I want to fix them, and some of them are done
in a way that breaks backward compatibility.


In such cases, I fix in-kernel Kconfig files first,
and then, I fix the kconfig implementation.

For example,

Fix users:   8636a1f9677db4f883f29a072f401303acfc2edd
Fix Kconfig: f5451582c4e22ce8912aae4950810f3598c9b516


Fix users:   df8df5e4bc37e39010cfdf5d50cf726fe08aae5b
Fix Kconfig: 09d5873e4d1f70202314b5fe40160f9b14b9d2d0


I can proceed confidently because we have Kconfig files
and scripts/kconfig in the same tree, and I can
do build tests easily.


Again, if we split Kconfig as a standalone project,
I would need to care about which projects would be
affected by such changes, say, not only Linux but also
dozens of projects, which I do not know much about.






-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Powered by blists - more mailing lists