Le 18/08/2010 10:57, Cong Wang a écrit : > On 08/18/10 16:38, Brice Goglin wrote: >> Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a écrit : >>> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote: >>>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks >>>> like a >>>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates >>>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than >>>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really >>>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE? >>>> >>> >>> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line, >>> so we need to regenerate it. >>> >>> Or am I missing your point here? >>> >> >> Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display >> the release string (which means you would not need write access to the >> kernel build dir). And indeed make help says: >> kernelrelease - Output the release version string >> Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way >> display it too" (and you need write access). >> > > I believe you will also need write access even without this patch, > if you compile a fresh kernel. So your assumption is not correct. > If I revert 01ab17887f4, I don't need write access. Things always worked fine before 2.6.36 as far I remember. Brice -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html