linux-kernel - Re: 2.6 Makefile replacement for VPATH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090625174748.GA15168@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:47:48 +0200
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Kyle Hubert <khubert@...y.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Igor Gorodetsky <igorodet@...y.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6 Makefile replacement for VPATH

> I refer to VPATH with regards to the situation where you can have
> multiple Makefiles target the same source file to build different
> objects. In particular, we are using the same source file recompiled
> with different options to be able to support different devices.

Several obvious solutions.

a) Let the same driver handle multiple devices - we do this in very often.

b) Keep all shared functionality in a dedicated lib* module, and
have thin wrappers for the actual drivers. See libata for example.

c) The ugly where you have a thin dedicated .C file for each driver
that includes the source they share.

> How do others handle this? Do they just move their driver outside of
> the kernel Makefiles so they can iterate through the two builds via
> traditional Make routines?
That will most likely not work.

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/