Hello Jose,
On 2024/05/30, Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez wrote:
> The following tests to verify weak dependencies have been implemented:
> 1) modprobe test to check that related weakdep modules are not loaded
> due to being a weakdep.
> 2) depmod test to check weakdep output.
> 3) user test to check that configuration files with weakdep are parsed
> correctly and related weakdep modules can be read correctly from user
> applications.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jose Ignacio Tornos Martinez <jtornosm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Seems like this commit has regressed make distcheck on my end. Namely
I'm running the following commands:
git clone ...
cd kmod
git clean -fxd
./autogen.sh c
make distcheck
Result in:
...
make[5]: *** No rule to make target '.../kmod-32/_build/sub/testsuite/module-playground/mod-weakdep.o', needed by '.../kmod-32/_build/sub/testsuite/module-playground/mod-weakdep.mod'. Stop.
make[4]: *** [Makefile:1903: .../kmod-32/_build/sub/testsuite/module-playground] Error 2
Can you reproduce it on your end?
While in the area, a couple of question if I may:
- Should we move the new weakdeps API in libkmod/libkmod.sym near the
end in a separate LIBKMOD_XX section?
As-is, it looks like we're adding symbols to what should be a frozen set
(aka LIBKMOD_5, which was released decade+ ago).
Admittedly there was a similar erroneous(?) change not loo long ago -
9becaae ("libkmod: Add lookup from module name").
@Lucas can/should we fix the kmod_module_new_from_name_lookup symbol in
the version script?
- Is this work related to the weak-modules used in RHEL/Fedora [1]?
Alternatively, would the RedHat team consider having the weak-modules
solution in upstream kmod?
... assuming Lucas is OK with the idea. I'm approaching with with my
dkms co-maintainer hat on, where the fewer "if distro == X" logic we
have the better.
Thanks in advance,
Emil
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kmod/blob/rawhide/f/weak-modules
