[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87po02zmxt.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 07:54:38 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kbuild: disable KBUILD_MODNAME when building for mod.a
On Wed, Jul 04 2018, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2018-07-04 7:14 GMT+09:00 NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>:
>>
>> Where I've been using these patches I've sometimes been adding
>>
>> ccflags-y += -DKBUILD_MODNAME='"FOO"'
>>
>> to Makefiles so that modules_params get handled correctly on non-module
>> builds. I've thought about instead allowing "modobj-name" to be defined
>> and requiring that it be set if either modobj-[yn] is set. Then it gets
>> used for the KBUILD_MODNAME when building modobj modules.
>>
>> Would you prefer to always require KBUILD_MODNAME, or to use a default
>> name for dynamic-debug?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> NeilBrown
>
>
> I prefer flat directory structure for modules.
> Most of modules fit in a single directory.
I'd prefer that too in general.
But some modules are bigger than others and some times it helps to
sub-divide a module.
xfs, btrfs, ceph, net/dccp, and lustre all already use multiple
directories despite the poor support, so clearly some developers
like a more structured approach to organizing their code.
Wouldn't it be good to allow them to make full use of the kbuild system?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists