Subject: Re: Request for comments: let config(1) generate LKMs
To: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: David Laight <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/19/2007 00:43:08
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 01:08:51PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 01:19:18AM +0900, Hiroyuki Bessho wrote:
> > In the linux camp, building a module of a device driver (or a
> > subsystem of the kernel) is very easy and just mark [M] instead of [X]
> > in menuconfig (as far as the device driver code supports module and
> > in-kernl forms). What I want is to do the same thing with config(1)
> > and config(5).
> I think this is a good goal. I think this discussion is revolving around
> the fact that some of the things we do now don't really fit well in an
> LKM-based world. And/or they aren't necessarily what we want to do in an
> LKM-based world. :-)
> I think though that if we start to do this, we should not stop at drivers.
> I'll follow up to other messages, but I think some of the issues you're
> running into go away if we modularize more (if not most) of the kernel.
I think I'd want to do it the other way around.
Have per driver makefiles that build driver_foo.o which can
either be LKMs or be linked into the main kernel image.
Then config(n) would control which of them get included into
David Laight: email@example.com