linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] kbuild: disable KBUILD

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: <CAK7LNAT9deaBb0aiFW+00G-S4FTVdN5GX-n3HbEUR07nzHQUmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:06:26 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.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

2018-07-05 6:54 GMT+09:00 NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>:
> 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?


xfs is quite big, but the others are not too bad.
You can collect files into a single directory if you want.
If you mind the namespace, one tip might be to group files with prefix.
For example,

  drivers/btrfs/tests/foo.o  ->  drivers/btrfs/test-foo.o

I do not want to introduce a mess to core build scripts.


> Thanks,
> NeilBrown



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada