From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: buffer cache Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:35:51 -0700 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030915163551.GC1433@kroah.com> References: <1063535842.11431.44.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Woodhouse , Jan Hudec , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.kroah.org ([65.200.24.183]:4547 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261550AbTIOQgW (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:36:22 -0400 To: Bryan Henderson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 09:18:38AM -0700, Bryan Henderson wrote: > >The correct way to build modules out of the kernel tree is to use the > >kernel makefiles and override SUBDIRS to point at your own directory; > > That philosophy seems to fly in the face of the very modularity that makes > modules great. If you accept the idea that your module source code should > be arranged the same way as Linux kernel source code and built the same > way, you might as well just maintain your code as a patch to the Linux > source tree. > > But if you accept the idea that a module writer can write his own make > file, then he is free to organize the source code in original ways, use a > language other than C, and share code or structure with non-Linux > applications (e.g. device drivers for the same device in other OSes). Um, I think the point is that no one does accept that idea. And if you try to write your own makefile, then you deserve any problems that you might have, as the kernel build developers have repeatedly told people how to do this properly so that things to not break. greg k-h