linux-kernel - Re: [rfc, PATCH v1 1/1] platform/x86: intel: Add 'intel' prefix to the modules automatically

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zw5Lew9I3YG_apPx@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 14:01:15 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ux.intel.com>,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc, PATCH v1 1/1] platform/x86: intel: Add 'intel' prefix to
 the modules automatically

On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 12:05:45PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > Rework Makefile to add 'intel' prefix to the modules automatically.
> > This removes a lot of boilerplate code in it and also makes robust
> > against mistypos in the prefix.

...

> > Send as RFC because TBH I rather want to have something like this to be
> > available on the level of Kbuild for any of the subdirectories in
> > question. Also I haven't done any comprehensive build tests on this,
> > let's see what CIs think about this...
> 
> It feels useful to have this automatically available for the folder one 
> level towards root... (perhaps two levels).

Yeah, ideally for a few levels of folders, but at least one would be useful
to start with.

> But you didn't include kbuild ML (now added).

I'll do it in v2.

...

> Why call these intel-target-*, wouldn't intel-obj-* be more consistent?

The (potential) problem with obj as it may collide with the standard way of
collecting objects under meta one (which will become a real module). I haven't
tested that but I believe that putting anything to FOO-obj-y/m is a carefully
placed minefield, if not now, then later. That said, I would avoid using obj
there.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko