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:
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
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
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: