On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 07:01:10PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > There are two things that don't work too well with this. First this > > causes the build to break if the build machine doesn't have the new > > public header (include/uapi/linux/dma-buf.h) installed yet. So the only > > way to make this work would be by building the kernel once with SAMPLES > > disabled, install the headers and then build again with SAMPLES enabled. > > Which really isn't very nice. > > > > One other option that I've tried is to modify the include path so that > > the test program would get the in-tree copy of the public header file, > > but that didn't build properly either because the header files aren't > > properly sanitized and therefore the compiler complains about it > > (include/uapi/linux/types.h). > > > > One other disadvantage of carrying the sample program in the tree is > > that there's only infrastructure to build programs natively on the build > > machine. That's somewhat unfortunate because if you want to run the test > > program on a different architecture you have to either compile the > > kernel natively on that architecture (which isn't very practical on many > > embedded devices) or cross-compile manually. > > > > I think a much nicer solution would be to add infrastructure to cross- > > compile these test programs, so that they end up being built for the > > same architecture as the kernel image (i.e. using CROSS_COMPILE). > > > > Adding Michal and the linux-kbuild mailing list, perhaps this has been > > discussed before, or maybe somebody has a better idea on how to solve > > this. > I actually looked into this some time ago. > May try to dust off the patch. > IIRC the kernel provided headers were used for building - not the one installed on the machine. > And crosscompile were supported. That sounds exactly like what I'd want for this. If you need any help, please let me know. Thanks, Thierry
Attachment:
pgpoBoURgJUH5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
