From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
To: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup KERNEL_VERSION definition and linux/version.h
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:55:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020405175527.GK961@matchmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020405020752.GJ961@matchmail.com> <3034.1017974559@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com>
> >On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:36:06AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> >> No, but version.h is working at the moment in 2.4. Why change it?
> >
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:07:52 -0800,
> Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> wrote:
> >Why do so many drivers enable options depending on the kernel version?
> >Shouldn't that be stripped out before a patch is accepted into the kernel?
>
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 12:42:39PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> >From kbuild 2.5 top level Makefile.
>
> # FIXME: Current kernel source includes linux/version.h, mainly to get
> # KERNEL_VERSION(). version.h also includes UTS_RELEASE which changes every
> # time the kernel identifiers change. The presence of UTS_RELEASE in version.h
> # causes lots of unnecessary recompilations, very few places actually want
> # UTS_RELEASE. The new makefile generates separate linux/version.h and
> # linux/uts_release.h, with version.h including utsname.h to avoid compilation
> # errors. Find all the source code that needs just UTS_RELEASE and change it to
> # include uts_release.h, then remove #include <linux/uts_release.h> from the
> # commands below. KAO
>
> Unfortunately this area of kbuild 2.4 is fragile. At the moment,
> changes to the top level Makefile indirectly force a rebuild,
> Makefile -> version.h -> KERNEL_VERSION() -> almost everything.
>
> Breaking that chain _might_ cause problems in 2.4 because it does not
> have a complete dependency chain to pick up changes to the top level
> Makefile, it only works at the moment due to the extra recompiles. I
> am not willing to change this in 2.4 until I have got it stable in 2.5.
Sounds like a good plan to work on 2.5 first.
Hmm. It looks like kbuild 2.5 might be able to be split up into a few
separate parts. Do you think so too?
Do you know where I could find some good documentation on Makefiles?
Especially on dependencies and etc?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-05 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-03 14:49 [PATCH] cleanup KERNEL_VERSION definition and linux/version.h Hiroyuki Toda
2002-04-03 23:06 ` Keith Owens
2002-04-04 1:12 ` Hiroyuki Toda
2002-04-04 1:36 ` Keith Owens
2002-04-04 4:31 ` Hiroyuki Toda
2002-04-05 2:07 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-04-05 2:42 ` Keith Owens
2002-04-05 17:55 ` Mike Fedyk [this message]
2002-04-06 3:41 ` Keith Owens
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-06 16:23 Dan Kegel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020405175527.GK961@matchmail.com \
--to=mfedyk@matchmail.com \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox