On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 03:53:15PM -0400, Dave Reisner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:28:27PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 02:52:43PM -0400, Dave Reisner wrote: > > > This lets KERNELDIR apply to the install target as well so that you can > > > do something such as the following will Just Workâ˘: > > > > > > make KERNELDIR=/lib/modules/3.15.0-foo install > > > --- > > > Makefile | 14 +++++++------- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > > index c593b51..fe4dd58 100644 > > > --- a/Makefile > > > +++ b/Makefile > > > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ kdbus$(EXT)-y := \ > > > > > > obj-m += kdbus$(EXT).o > > > > > > -KERNELDIR ?= /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build > > > +KERNELDIR ?= /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r) > > > PWD := $(shell pwd) > > > > > > all: module test > > > @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ test:: > > > $(MAKE) -C test KBUILD_MODNAME=kdbus$(EXT) > > > > > > module: > > > - $(MAKE) -C $(KERNELDIR) M=$(PWD) > > > + $(MAKE) -C $(KERNELDIR)/build M=$(PWD) > > > > Nope, you just broke the build on my machine when I wanted to build > > against the kernel source tree in /home/gregkh/linux/ that does not have > > a build/ subdirectory in it. > > Fair enough. I figured this would be the response I get [0].
Um, that should be the workflow of _any_ kernel developer, we all build against local kernel directories, not one that is installed in /lib/. Some of us don't ever boot kernels installed in /lib :) > > What is wrong with putting the build/ trailing subdir in your build > > command line? What is currently broken today with the build system? > > As the commit message implies, make install doesn't work for non-running > kernels -- it will always install to the current kernel. So, after a > kernel upgrade, I have to make the subdirectories myself, copy over the > module, and run depmod before I can build an initramfs for the new > kernel (and subsequently reboot). Then fix up the install target, don't break the build target :) > > And long-term, this will not be an issue at all as the code will be > > merged into the kernel tree. > > Sure, but unless I'm missing something, the status quo makes things a > bit tedious for rebuilds. Most other out of tree modules I've come in > contact with make this a trivial operation. What do their makefiles look like that is different here? The module: target should be the same, right? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
