Re: Make rumpbake more flexible

  • From: Antti Kantee <pooka@xxxxxx>
  • To: rumpkernel-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 10:15:40 +0000

On 27/08/15 09:56, Wei Liu wrote:

Hi all

Currently all targets of rumpbake are hardcoded. That means I can't
control what rump components are linked in to the final binary. That's
not very desirable for power users. Being the first one to have such
needs I can certainly foresee other users in the future want to do the
same.

Can you define "hardcoded"? They're in a config file. They need to be specified somehow, unless you intend the opposite of hardcoded to be "give all components on the command line".

I would like to make rumpbake more flexible. That could be done by
either getting rid of the positional arguments or making it accept user
provided config file.

Can you elaborate what "Getting of the positional arguments" means?

The syntax of rumpbake being experimental means we can get away with any
breakage at this stage.

If we add something like rumpbake -c myconfig, it won't even break anything. Doing so will, however, "export" the config file format, but I think we're allowed to break the format later, as long as things are marked experimental.


Since the subject is "make rumpbake more flexible", there's also another issue which we've been discussing with Sebastian. It's a mostly separate discussion, and if someone wants to discuss it further, please start another thread. I'm just giving it as an example of how we probably still need to change the config file syntax. There should be some additional structure which allows associating configs more specifically with boards. For example, the set of device drivers appropriate for x86 platforms is not the same as for ARM boards. Furthermore, there is variation between ARM boards. So, hw_generic is not actually hw_generic, it's something like hw_x86_pc_generic.

Other related posts: