On 7/11/22 6:13 AM, Anders Roxell wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 19:14, Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/8/22 10:23 AM, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
Earlier attempts to get "make O=build kselftest-all" to work were
not successful as they made undesirable changes to some functions
in the top-level Makefile. This series takes a different
approach by removing the root cause of the problem within
kselftest, which is when the sub-Makefile tries to install kernel
headers "backwards" by calling make with the top-level Makefile.
The actual issue comes from the fact that $(srctree) is ".." when
building in a sub-directory with "O=build" which then obviously
makes "-C $(top_srcdir)" point outside of the real source tree.
With this series, the generic kselftest targets work as expected
from the top level with or without a build directory e.g.:
$ make kselftest-all
$ make O=build kselftest-all
Then in order to build using the sub-Makefile explicitly, the
headers have to be installed first. This is arguably a valid
requirement to have when building a tool from a sub-Makefile.
For example, "make -C tools/testing/nvdimm/" fails in a similar
way until <asm/rwonce.h> has been generated by a kernel build.
Guillaume Tucker (4):
selftests: drop khdr make target
selftests: stop using KSFT_KHDR_INSTALL
selftests: drop KSFT_KHDR_INSTALL make target
Makefile: add headers_install to kselftest targets
This takes us to back to the state before b2d35fa5fc80 added
khdr support. I reluctantly agreed to the change and it has
proven to be a problematic change. I would rather have had the
dependency stated that headers should be installed prior to
building tests - test build depends on kernel build anyway and
having dependency on headers having build isn't a huge deal.
I agree that it's not a huge deal.
So I am in favor of getting rid of khdr support. However, this
khdr support was a change originated from Linaro test ring. Undoing
this might have implication on their workflow.
It shouldn't be a problem.
I've been running these patches through a smoke test and it looks
good.
Tested-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you Anders for confirming this isn't a problem for Linaro workflow
and testing.
Than you Guillaume for fixing the problem. I will apply these for 5.20-rc1.
thanks,
-- Shuah
