From: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
To: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup KERNEL_VERSION definition and linux/version.h
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:42:39 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3034.1017974559@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:07:52 PST." <20020405020752.GJ961@matchmail.com>
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:07:52 -0800,
Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:36:06AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:12:29 +0900,
>> Hiroyuki Toda <might@might.dyn.to> wrote:
>> >
>> >Keith> This file will change completely in 2.5 when kbuild 2.5 goes in. Why
>> >Keith> does it need to be rearranged in 2.4?
>> >
>> >Will kbuild 2.5 go in 2.4 tree also?
>>
>> No, but version.h is working at the moment in 2.4. Why change it?
>
>Why do so many drivers enable options depending on the kernel version?
>Shouldn't that be stripped out before a patch is accepted into the kernel?
>From kbuild 2.5 top level Makefile.
# FIXME: Current kernel source includes linux/version.h, mainly to get
# KERNEL_VERSION(). version.h also includes UTS_RELEASE which changes every
# time the kernel identifiers change. The presence of UTS_RELEASE in version.h
# causes lots of unnecessary recompilations, very few places actually want
# UTS_RELEASE. The new makefile generates separate linux/version.h and
# linux/uts_release.h, with version.h including utsname.h to avoid compilation
# errors. Find all the source code that needs just UTS_RELEASE and change it to
# include uts_release.h, then remove #include <linux/uts_release.h> from the
# commands below. KAO
Unfortunately this area of kbuild 2.4 is fragile. At the moment,
changes to the top level Makefile indirectly force a rebuild,
Makefile -> version.h -> KERNEL_VERSION() -> almost everything.
Breaking that chain _might_ cause problems in 2.4 because it does not
have a complete dependency chain to pick up changes to the top level
Makefile, it only works at the moment due to the extra recompiles. I
am not willing to change this in 2.4 until I have got it stable in 2.5.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-05 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-03 14:49 [PATCH] cleanup KERNEL_VERSION definition and linux/version.h Hiroyuki Toda
2002-04-03 23:06 ` Keith Owens
2002-04-04 1:12 ` Hiroyuki Toda
2002-04-04 1:36 ` Keith Owens
2002-04-04 4:31 ` Hiroyuki Toda
2002-04-05 2:07 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-04-05 2:42 ` Keith Owens [this message]
2002-04-05 17:55 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-04-06 3:41 ` Keith Owens
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-06 16:23 Dan Kegel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3034.1017974559@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com \
--to=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.