2018-07-05 6:54 GMT+09:00 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Jul 04 2018, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >> 2018-07-04 7:14 GMT+09:00 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> Where I've been using these patches I've sometimes been adding >>> >>> ccflags-y += -DKBUILD_MODNAME='"FOO"' >>> >>> to Makefiles so that modules_params get handled correctly on non-module >>> builds. I've thought about instead allowing "modobj-name" to be defined >>> and requiring that it be set if either modobj-[yn] is set. Then it gets >>> used for the KBUILD_MODNAME when building modobj modules. >>> >>> Would you prefer to always require KBUILD_MODNAME, or to use a default >>> name for dynamic-debug? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> NeilBrown >> >> >> I prefer flat directory structure for modules. >> Most of modules fit in a single directory. > > I'd prefer that too in general. > But some modules are bigger than others and some times it helps to > sub-divide a module. > xfs, btrfs, ceph, net/dccp, and lustre all already use multiple > directories despite the poor support, so clearly some developers > like a more structured approach to organizing their code. > Wouldn't it be good to allow them to make full use of the kbuild system? xfs is quite big, but the others are not too bad. You can collect files into a single directory if you want. If you mind the namespace, one tip might be to group files with prefix. For example, drivers/btrfs/tests/foo.o -> drivers/btrfs/test-foo.o I do not want to introduce a mess to core build scripts. > Thanks, > NeilBrown -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- 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
