On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 12:29:37PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion about how this should be done, and in > fact I believed at the time that I was bringing the system into > compliance with what everyone wanted here. :) > > There seem to be two conflicting visions: > > a) The way it was (much) earlier: use ifdefs and defines to get by > without the latest kernel headers, or > > b) Requiring recent kernel headers to build the various selftests. > > Shuah, Peter, others: can we choose a direction please? Either > way will work, and I personally don't care which one we choose. So as David already argued, the current thing does not in fact help with b. You just have to install once and the error goes away, then carry that tree for a year and you're running old crap again. My biggest beef with the whole thing is that I simply do not want to use 'make headers', it doesn't work for me. I have a ton of output directories and I don't care to build tools into the output dirs, in fact some of them flat out refuse to work that way (bpf comes to mind).
