Re: Searching for insight into lib-y and lib-m

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 09:28:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt suggests that CONFIG_GLOB=m would
> > be synonymous with CONFIG_GLOB=y in this case, so the net effect would
> > be identical to case 3.  Am I right?
> > 
> 
> 'git log lib/Makefile' shows me patches that I have submitted where
> kernel modules were built as loadable modules (=m) and library code was
> built but then apparently discarded, so the "driver" modules could not
> load (were missing some needed symbols).

Shouldn't we fix that?  At least for in-kernel modules?

> See fcd40d69afea8700eda8cbf381f6d160cf757ebf
> and b4d3ba3346f092b9185da991414775281ceacaac.
> I'm sure that there have been others that were similar.
> These are just the most recent two patches in that category.
> > 
> > May I humbly beg some guidance as to the best way to proceed?  My current code
> > takes option 2 and builds its own module if CONFIG_ATA=m, but people are asking if
> > that's really necessary.
> 
> I don't see a problem with that, but Michal should be able to speak about that.

It's more cumbersome and involved.  It's kinda sad to have to do this
because our lib-* can't handle in-kernel modules.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun