Re: [PATCH 0/2] kbuild updates
From: Martin Schlemmer
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 17:29:15 EST
On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 00:18, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > If I get just one good example I will go for the object directory, but
> > what I have seen so far is whining - no examples.
> Now I recall why I did not like the object directory.
> I will break all modules using the kbuild infrastructure!
Below do not really explain this - care to be more detailed?
> Why, because there is no way the to find the output directory except
> specifying both directories.
> One could do:
> make -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/source O=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build M=`pwd`
Huh? Explain to me how else you would do builds that have separate
output directory? And what is the difference from above to:
make -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build O=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/object M=`pwd`
except that you will _not_ cause existing stuff to break?
> So the currect choice is:
> 1) Break modules that actually dive into the src, grepping, including or whatever
> 2) Break all modules using kbuild infrastructure, including the above ones
> I go for 1), introducing minimal breakage.
> And please keep in mind. The breakage wil _only_ be visible when kernels are
> shipped with separate output directory.
How is that? In both cases the 'build' symlink do not point to the
> If kernels are shipped with no output files at all then one can just
> compile the kernel. Seems to be the Fedora way. No breakage happens.
> If kernels are shipped with mixed source and output then no breakage happens.
> If kernels are shipped with separate source and output then we better break
> as few modules as possible. And the introduced change actually minimize breakage.
> So the patch will not change.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part