On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 17:21:39 +0200 A FreeBSD User <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am Tage des Herren Sun, 11 Oct 2026 22:07:36 +0100 > Nuno Teixeira <[email protected]> schrieb: > > > Hello, > > > > 37: > > > /usr/src/sys/compat/linuxkpi/common/include/linux/kernel.h:33:10: fatal > > > error: 'opt_linuxkpi.h' file not found > > > 33 | #include "opt_linuxkpi.h" > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > I've reported today at > > https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-src-all/2026-October/082012.html > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ups. I did also for port graphics/drm-612-kmod a few minutes ago. The header > file in question > is simply not in the most recent source tree ... very strange ;-) Good point. It SHOULDN'T be under /usr/src/, but under /usr/obj/, as it's generated on "kernel build time". This means, it shouldn't exist unless you built kernel yourself locally. Thus, I believe it SHOULDN'T be required for out-of-tree kmods (in ports or in the wild). If it's REALLY mandatory for out-of-tree kmod builds and fix in out-of-tree kmod side, error message to request local kernel builds first should be needed. If not, guards for #include NOT to be included except for kernel builds in src side would be the best fix. IIRC, it's the way usually done for this kind of situations, but I'm not enough sure if opt_linuxkpi.h is really mandatory or not for out-of-tree kmod builds. Note that, as far as I could confirm, there are 3 headers attempting to include opt_linuxkpi.h in offending commits (at least). And LINUXKPI_DEBUG could be appropreate to be used for safeguard? /usr/src/sys/compat/linuxkpi/common/include/linux/spinlock.h /usr/src/sys/compat/linuxkpi/common/include/linux/kconfig.h /usr/src/sys/compat/linuxkpi/common/include/linux/kernel.h Regards. > > Kind regards, > > oh > > -- > > A FreeBSD user -- Tomoaki AOKI <[email protected]>
