[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs: Makefile-linux-2.6 => Makefile?

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs: Makefile-linux-2.6 => Makefile?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:03:57 -0600
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060109164611.GA1382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20060109164214.GA10367@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060109164611.GA1382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:42:14PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

Hi hch.

Any specific reason why xfs uses a indirection for the Makefile?
It is planned to drop export of VERSION, PATCHLEVEL etc. from
main makefile and it is OK except for xfs due to the funny
Makefile indirection.

I suggest:
git mv fs/xfs/Makefile-linux-2.6 fs/xfs/Makefile

I'd be all for it, but the SGI people like this layout to keep a common
fs/xfs for both 2.4 and 2.6 (with linux-2.4 and linux-2.6 subdirs respectively)

p.s. and no, I'm not official xfs maintainer and never have been, so cc set
to linux-xfs were all interested parties hang around.

Yep, our internal tree has both linux-2.4/ and linux-2.6/ subdirs, so this is handy internal to sgi. But I don't have a big problem with the kernel.org code losing the indirection, even if we keep it here. I'd check with Nathan first though, because he'd have to work around that difference when he pushes code out.

Out of curiosity, what's the reason to drop VERSION & PATCHLEVEL... seems handy if you have a common body of code that needs to build for various kernels, with various Makefiles to suit. As above. :)



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>