From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:52719 "EHLO mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751643Ab0HRI4p (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2010 04:56:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4C6B9F53.6040100@inria.fr> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:52:35 +0200 From: Brice Goglin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Makefile: "make kernelrelease" should show the correct full kernel version References: <20100628030507.5187.95903.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20100628030516.5187.49089.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <4C6B88A5.4050305@inria.fr> <4C6B957C.1090308@redhat.com> <4C6B9BFE.1030308@inria.fr> <4C6BA077.2080306@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4C6BA077.2080306@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Cong Wang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Michal Marek Le 18/08/2010 10:57, Cong Wang a écrit : > On 08/18/10 16:38, Brice Goglin wrote: >> Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a écrit : >>> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote: >>>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks >>>> like a >>>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates >>>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than >>>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really >>>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE? >>>> >>> >>> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line, >>> so we need to regenerate it. >>> >>> Or am I missing your point here? >>> >> >> Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display >> the release string (which means you would not need write access to the >> kernel build dir). And indeed make help says: >> kernelrelease - Output the release version string >> Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way >> display it too" (and you need write access). >> > > I believe you will also need write access even without this patch, > if you compile a fresh kernel. So your assumption is not correct. > If I revert 01ab17887f4, I don't need write access. Things always worked fine before 2.6.36 as far I remember. Brice