On Sun. 13 Nov. 2022 at 23:04, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13.11.2022 22:47:14, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > > On Sun. 13 nov. 2022 at 22:39, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 13.11.2022 22:19:23, Vincent MAILHOL wrote: > > > > On Sun. 13 Nov. 2022 at 22:12, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On 13.11.2022 17:53:18, Vincent Mailhol wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mcp251xfd/mcp251xfd-dev-coredump.c b/mcp251xfd/mcp251xfd-dev-coredump.c > > > > > > index 5874d24..422900f 100644 > > > > > > --- a/mcp251xfd/mcp251xfd-dev-coredump.c > > > > > > +++ b/mcp251xfd/mcp251xfd-dev-coredump.c > > > > > > @@ -17,18 +17,10 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > > > > > > > > > > +#include "../lib.h" > > > > > > > > > > Does #include <lib.h> work? > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, no: > > > > > > Using the plain makefile without autotools and cmake? > > > > It works with autotools. Actually, I am now confused, I thought that > > Makefile would be generated by ./autogen.sh and ./configure. To be > > honest, after seeing the Makefile, I did not pay attention to the rest > > and did not realize that this was also a autotools project. > > Shouldn't the Makefile be removed? It is odd to have both. > > I don't see any benefits in the handcrafted Makefile, Oliver seems to > like it :) Well, I think it should be either, not both. And can-utils being popular and included in many distro such as Debian, I think it is better to keep the autotools. But I am not going to change it myself. This also means that it will be #include "../lib.h" and not #include <lib.h> (unless the handcrafted Makefile gets a header include directive). Unless you have a last comment, I will send the v2 in a couple of minutes. Yours sincerely, Vincent Mailhol
