Re: [PATCH 0/2] kbuild updates

[Jari Ruusu <jariruusu@users.sourceforge.net>]

Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 June 2004 07:29, Jari Ruusu wrote:
> > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > Now I recall why I did not like the object directory.
> > > I will break all modules using the kbuild infrastructure!
> >
> > No it does not. If 'export KBUILD_OUTPUT=/foo' command is used before
> > kernel is built, it is not any more difficult to compile external modules
> > with that same env variable defined.
> 
> This clearly is not an option. We want the most trivial way of building
> external modules to continue working, no matter whether the kernel is using a
> separate output directory or not; with Sam's patch we get that:
> 
>         make -C /lib/modules/$(uname -r)/build M=$(pwd)

Kernel already does that correctly, and follows KBUILD_OUTPUT env variable
that points to where user wants the object tree. No changes needed to
external module build scripts.

Maybe you SUSE guys just didn't realize that.
 
> We also want to build modules for other configurations; this is as simple as
> passing another path in -C. For example, in the SUSE setup this would give
> you a module for an i386 bigsmp kernel:
> 
>         make -C /usr/scc/linux-obj/i386/bigsmp M=$(pwd)

This is cool and desirable, but does not need or even justify
breaking/redirecting the 'build' symlink elsewhere.

> The environment variable proposal is worthless:

It is not a proposal. It has been in mainline since 2.5.x kernels and last
time I checked, it worked fine.

> Where on earth should that environment variable come from?

The person compiling kernel decides where he wants the object tree. He only
needs to set that once, before builing a kernel with separate object and
source trees. And same env variable works just fine when used with
externally compiled modules.

-- 
Jari Ruusu  1024R/3A220F51 5B 4B F9 BB D3 3F 52 E9  DB 1D EB E3 24 0E A9 DD