out-of-tree configuration

[Anders Darander]

On 18 Jun 2014 16:02, "john bougs" <bogusemail98230 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:47 AM, Anders Darander <
anders.darander at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 18 June 2014 15:03, John Bougs <bogusemail98230 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I am working with a kernel module that has a few kconfig options
associated
> > with it. The makefile for the module as it is does not support
out-of-tree
> > builds. I am trying to change the the makefile to do out-of-tree builds.
>
> First, why do you want to build the module out-of-tree?
>
> For 3rd party modules I can understand that need, OTOH, in that case your
> question wouldn't have existed.
>
>
> I am working with a third party module that I am building out of tree.  I
trying this across multiple platforms.  I am placing the module code in our
VCS... out of tree seems to be a cleaner, simpler, les complicated
solution to me.

Well, from your first email, I got the impression that you tried to move an
in-tree module out of the kernel tree.

What 3rd party module is it that you're building, that is delivered to you
in a state to only allow in-tree builds? That's a pretty uncommon
situation.

Are the config options you need to be set something that only this module
knows about, or are they something the rest of the kernel knows about?

> Without  trying to sound confrontational, why not build it out of tree?

Well, there's nothing wrong to build a true 3rd party module out-of-tree.
It might very well be your only choice due to a number of factors.

Though, if you can get it upstreamed, you'll win in the long term.

Cheers,
Anders
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20140618/e9185bc0/attachment.html