On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:15:15PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/08/2012 12:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> > >> How much is needed to avoid this misuse of kernel-internal build rules? > >> This was and is an ugly hack. > >> > > > > It is more or less the same as for arch/x86/boot and other things. If > > there are better ways to do it suggestions are very much appreciated. > > > > However, it is a bit of a tricky bit because we need *some* of the bits > > of the target compiler configuration and some not (this is the same as > > arch/x86/boot etc.) It is not "pure target" but it's also most > > definitely not host. > > > > Anyway... to answer your direct question: all of that would have been > required anyway. In therms of build rules the overall patchset is > pretty much a lateral move from arch/x86/kernel/acpi/rm to > arch/x86/realmode/rm. That doesn't mean we couldn't do it > better/centralize/etc; however, none of this is new and would be a > separate change. Agreed. It just hurst my stummack big-time when KBUILD_CFLAGS are manupulated in a "random" Makefile. Last time we looked at this I failed to come up with something better. Sam -- 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
