Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Makefile.bsd: remove directory that no longer exists #11077

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 20, 2020

Conversation

kevans91
Copy link
Contributor

This was removed in a reorganization of directories preparing for the
merge of FreeBSD support, 006e9a4 by mmacy. While llvm is perfectly
happy with the nonexistent -I directory, the gcc6 and gcc9 we can elect
to use as cross-toolchains both trip over it.

Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans kevans@FreeBSD.org

Motivation and Context

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
  • Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

This was removed in a reorganization of directories preparing for the
merge of FreeBSD support, 006e9a4 by mmacy. While llvm is perfectly
happy with the nonexistent -I directory, the gcc6 and gcc9 we can elect
to use as cross-toolchains both trip over it.

Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
@kevans91
Copy link
Contributor Author

@mattmacy We don't use Makefile.bsd in the imports to provision anything in sys/conf/kmod.mk (OPENZFS_CFLAGS) or sys/modules/zfs/Makefile, right?

Any objection to going ahead and committing the removal of these two instances of -Isys/contrib/openzfs/include/spl in -HEAD if not?

@behlendorf behlendorf added the Status: Code Review Needed Ready for review and testing label Oct 16, 2020
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 16, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #11077 into master will decrease coverage by 0.27%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master   #11077      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   79.67%   79.39%   -0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         397      397              
  Lines      125756   125756              
==========================================
- Hits       100191    99844     -347     
- Misses      25565    25912     +347     
Flag Coverage Δ
#kernel 80.38% <ø> (-0.07%) ⬇️
#user 64.45% <ø> (-1.12%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
module/os/linux/spl/spl-zlib.c 55.35% <0.00%> (-28.58%) ⬇️
module/zcommon/zfs_fletcher.c 68.09% <0.00%> (-10.20%) ⬇️
cmd/ztest/ztest.c 71.73% <0.00%> (-5.21%) ⬇️
module/zfs/bpobj.c 86.86% <0.00%> (-3.76%) ⬇️
module/zfs/vdev_raidz.c 88.81% <0.00%> (-3.59%) ⬇️
module/zcommon/zfs_fletcher_superscalar.c 97.05% <0.00%> (-2.95%) ⬇️
module/zfs/dsl_synctask.c 92.30% <0.00%> (-2.57%) ⬇️
module/zfs/zio_compress.c 92.72% <0.00%> (-1.82%) ⬇️
module/zcommon/zfs_fletcher_superscalar4.c 98.43% <0.00%> (-1.57%) ⬇️
module/zcommon/zfs_fletcher_sse.c 98.66% <0.00%> (-1.34%) ⬇️
... and 52 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 41e2b3d...c339f6d. Read the comment docs.

@behlendorf behlendorf added Status: Accepted Ready to integrate (reviewed, tested) and removed Status: Code Review Needed Ready for review and testing labels Oct 20, 2020
@behlendorf behlendorf merged commit 241c62b into openzfs:master Oct 20, 2020
ghost pushed a commit to zfsonfreebsd/ZoF that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2020
This was removed in a reorganization of directories preparing for the
merge of FreeBSD support, 006e9a4 by mmacy. While llvm is perfectly
happy with the nonexistent -I directory, the gcc6 and gcc9 we can elect
to use as cross-toolchains both trip over it.

Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Reviewed-by: Ryan Moeller <ryan@iXsystems.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
Closes openzfs#11077
behlendorf pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 30, 2020
This was removed in a reorganization of directories preparing for the
merge of FreeBSD support, 006e9a4 by mmacy. While llvm is perfectly
happy with the nonexistent -I directory, the gcc6 and gcc9 we can elect
to use as cross-toolchains both trip over it.

Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Reviewed-by: Ryan Moeller <ryan@iXsystems.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
Closes #11077
jsai20 pushed a commit to jsai20/zfs that referenced this pull request Mar 30, 2021
This was removed in a reorganization of directories preparing for the
merge of FreeBSD support, 006e9a4 by mmacy. While llvm is perfectly
happy with the nonexistent -I directory, the gcc6 and gcc9 we can elect
to use as cross-toolchains both trip over it.

Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Reviewed-by: Ryan Moeller <ryan@iXsystems.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
Closes openzfs#11077
sempervictus pushed a commit to sempervictus/zfs that referenced this pull request May 31, 2021
This was removed in a reorganization of directories preparing for the
merge of FreeBSD support, 006e9a4 by mmacy. While llvm is perfectly
happy with the nonexistent -I directory, the gcc6 and gcc9 we can elect
to use as cross-toolchains both trip over it.

Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Reviewed-by: Ryan Moeller <ryan@iXsystems.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org>
Closes openzfs#11077
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Accepted Ready to integrate (reviewed, tested)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants