From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: v4l-dvb tree build failure Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:08:53 -0800 Message-ID: <20081108050853.GA10926@kroah.com> References: <20081107143046.7b2b171a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <1226079837.11596.19.camel@brick> <20081108095950.259305aa.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20081108030535.GA14802@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20081108043816.GB10465@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:47947 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750916AbYKHFQL (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Nov 2008 00:16:11 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081108043816.GB10465@kroah.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Harvey Harrison , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Hans Verkuil On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:38:16PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 04:05:35AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 09:59:50AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi Harvey, > > > > > > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:43:57 -0800 Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > > > > > > Is it really fair to drop the v4l tree when it was -staging that broke? I'd humbly > > > > suggest that staging be weighted somewhat lower than the other trees. > > > > > > There is no staging tree in linux-next, that driver is in Linus' tree. I > > > agree that if there was a staging tree, it would be much lower priority. > > > > > > Maybe we need some way to exclude the staging directory from > > > all{yes,mod}config builds ... > > > > That is simple to do. Something like: > > > > config STAGING_EXCLUDE_BUILD > > bool "Exclude Staging from the build" > > > > > > And test for this in the Staging Makefile > > > > When this is set to 'y' then we will not build > > the staging tree. > > While that would work, it does seem odd to be asked two things: > "Staging drivers (y/N)" > if Y is chosen, they then get asked: > "Exclude Staging from the build? (Y/n)" > > It's like, "are you sure you really want to build this part of the > tree?" If that would make people's lives easier, I have no objection to > it, it's just kind of funny :) > > Stephen, what do you think? In thinking about it a bit more, I kind of like it. So here's the patch I just added to the staging tree: --- drivers/staging/Kconfig | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/drivers/staging/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/staging/Kconfig @@ -21,7 +21,23 @@ menuconfig STAGING If in doubt, say N here. -if STAGING + +config STAGING_EXCLUDE_BUILD + bool "Exclude Staging drivers from being built" + default y + ---help--- + Are you sure you really want to build the staging drivers? + They taint your kernel, don't live up to the normal Linux + kernel quality standards, are a bit crufty around the edges, + and might go off and kick your dog when you aren't paying + attention. + + Say N here to be able to select and build the Staging drivers. + This option is primarily here to prevent them from being built + when selecting 'make allyesconfg' and 'make allmodconfig' so + don't be all that put off, your dog will be just fine. + +if !STAGING_EXCLUDE_BUILD source "drivers/staging/et131x/Kconfig" @@ -59,4 +75,4 @@ source "drivers/staging/comedi/Kconfig" source "drivers/staging/asus_oled/Kconfig" -endif # STAGING +endif # !STAGING_EXCLUDE_BUILD