On 08/18/10 16:52, Brice Goglin wrote: > 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. > Ah, I forgot Michal checked in a slightly different patch with mine. :) Does the attached patch work for you? --- Signed-off-by: WANG Cong