Mike Frysinger wrote:

>On Monday 06 July 2009 13:28:00 Garrett Cooper wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Francesco RUNDO wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I've already fixed the same issue you reported. I've tested it
>>>successfully.
>>>
>>>Subrata has already merged my patch (please, find it in attachment).
>>>
>>>Please, check it before to submit another patch.
>>>      
>>>
>>At the end of the day, the real problem is that we're not using the
>>--with- functionality in autoconf, e.g. --with-cgroups, and instead
>>we're hacking a lot of noise into Makefile's.
>>    
>>
>
>selectively compiling groups of code needs to be thought out before we start 
>throwing --with-foo options at the problem.  otherwise we'll still end up with 
>crap, just in a different form.
>
>  
>
>>I can tell at first glance that that Makefile is a mess anyhow,
>>because it's referencing _hardcoded_ /proc references and as such will
>>fail to cross-compile properly if the target or the host are setup
>>differently from one another, in the following two scenarios:
>>    
>>
>
>yes, the merged patch and that makefile suck.  there should never be any 
>filesystem check in a Makefile anymore.  while peeking in /proc is somewhat 
>forgivable, looking for headers never is ok.  we have autoconf tests now and 
>Gowri's approach looks like the correct one.
>-mike
>
I agree with your explanation. My patch tried to address an issue on the 
testcase when  LTP is cross-compiled.

Thanks so much.
Best Regards
--
FR