ivshmem-server: ivshmem-client: Build when eventfd() is available

Currently ivshmem requires eventfd() which is Linux specific.
Do not and build it unconditionally on every Linux/BSD/Solaris.

This patch indirectly fixes build failure on NetBSD, where these tools
additionally require -lrt for shm_open(3). In future there should be
added support for NetBSD and the linking addressed appropriately.

Signed-off-by: Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com>
Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
---
 configure                            | 2 ++
 contrib/ivshmem-client/Makefile.objs | 2 +-
 contrib/ivshmem-server/Makefile.objs | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On 05/30/2017 01:20 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> Currently ivshmem requires eventfd() which is Linux specific.
> Do not and build it unconditionally on every Linux/BSD/Solaris.
> 
> This patch indirectly fixes build failure on NetBSD, where these tools
> additionally require -lrt for shm_open(3). In future there should be
> added support for NetBSD and the linking addressed appropriately.

Is this a v2 patch? If so, it's best to repost it as a new top-level
thread rather than buried in reply to your v1 patch.  Also, be sure to
include v2 in the subject line ('git send-email -v2' works wonders for
that).

> 
> Signed-off-by: Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com>
> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> ---

It also helps in a v2 submission to list here, after the --- separator,
how it differs from v1.

More submission hints at http://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch

On 30.05.2017 14:53, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/30/2017 01:20 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>> Currently ivshmem requires eventfd() which is Linux specific.
>> Do not and build it unconditionally on every Linux/BSD/Solaris.
>>
>> This patch indirectly fixes build failure on NetBSD, where these tools
>> additionally require -lrt for shm_open(3). In future there should be
>> added support for NetBSD and the linking addressed appropriately.
> 
> Is this a v2 patch? If so, it's best to repost it as a new top-level
> thread rather than buried in reply to your v1 patch.  Also, be sure to
> include v2 in the subject line ('git send-email -v2' works wonders for
> that).
> 

I reworked it, fixed title and it's more like v3.

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
>> ---
> 
> It also helps in a v2 submission to list here, after the --- separator,
> how it differs from v1.
> 
> More submission hints at http://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch
> 

Do I still need to resend it?

On 05/30/2017 08:11 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:

>>
>> Is this a v2 patch? If so, it's best to repost it as a new top-level
>> thread rather than buried in reply to your v1 patch.  Also, be sure to
>> include v2 in the subject line ('git send-email -v2' works wonders for
>> that).
>>

> 
> I reworked it, fixed title and it's more like v3.
> 

> Do I still need to resend it?
> 

A human maintainer can often (eventually) figure out what's going on if
you don't, but resending is easier if you want to ensure the automated
patch tools don't lose things.

Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:

> On 05/30/2017 08:11 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Is this a v2 patch? If so, it's best to repost it as a new top-level
>>> thread rather than buried in reply to your v1 patch.  Also, be sure to
>>> include v2 in the subject line ('git send-email -v2' works wonders for
>>> that).
>>>
>
>> 
>> I reworked it, fixed title and it's more like v3.
>> 
>
>> Do I still need to resend it?
>> 
>
> A human maintainer can often (eventually) figure out what's going on if
> you don't, but resending is easier if you want to ensure the automated
> patch tools don't lose things.

Yes.

However, ivshmem doesn't have a maintainer.  Since the patch is really
simple, the easiest path forward could be sending a v3 with
cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org.

On 31.05.2017 13:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:
> 
>> On 05/30/2017 08:11 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Is this a v2 patch? If so, it's best to repost it as a new top-level
>>>> thread rather than buried in reply to your v1 patch.  Also, be sure to
>>>> include v2 in the subject line ('git send-email -v2' works wonders for
>>>> that).
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I reworked it, fixed title and it's more like v3.
>>>
>>
>>> Do I still need to resend it?
>>>
>>
>> A human maintainer can often (eventually) figure out what's going on if
>> you don't, but resending is easier if you want to ensure the automated
>> patch tools don't lose things.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> However, ivshmem doesn't have a maintainer.  Since the patch is really
> simple, the easiest path forward could be sending a v3 with
> cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org.
> 

OK, I will do this.

Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com> writes:

> On 31.05.2017 13:11, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 05/30/2017 08:11 AM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a v2 patch? If so, it's best to repost it as a new top-level
>>>>> thread rather than buried in reply to your v1 patch.  Also, be sure to
>>>>> include v2 in the subject line ('git send-email -v2' works wonders for
>>>>> that).
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I reworked it, fixed title and it's more like v3.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Do I still need to resend it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A human maintainer can often (eventually) figure out what's going on if
>>> you don't, but resending is easier if you want to ensure the automated
>>> patch tools don't lose things.
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> However, ivshmem doesn't have a maintainer.  Since the patch is really
>> simple, the easiest path forward could be sending a v3 with
>> cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org.
>> 
>
> OK, I will do this.

Thank you for your patience (and the patch, of course).