From: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:42:28 +0800
When I use make LOCALVERSION=local and LOCALVERSION_AUTO is not set,
I got "2.6.35-rc3local". It is supposed to be "2.6.35-rc3-local".
Cc: Michal Marek <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
---
Makefile | 6 +++++-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 662e820..710f91c 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -950,7 +950,11 @@ else
endif
endif
-localver-full = $(localver)$(LOCALVERSION)$(localver-extra)
+ifneq ($(LOCALVERSION),)
+ localver-full = $(localver)-$(LOCALVERSION)$(localver-extra)
+else
+ localver-full = $(localver)$(LOCALVERSION)$(localver-extra)
+endif
# Store (new) KERNELRELASE string in include/config/kernel.release
kernelrelease = $(KERNELVERSION)$(localver-full)
--
1.6.5.2
From: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:45:21 +0800
After commit 85a256d8e0116c8f5ad276730830f5d4d473344d, 'make kernelrelease' doesn't
show the correct full kernel version. This patch fixes it, 'make kernelrelease' will
show the same version name with the one you finally get.
Cc: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
Cc: Michal Marek <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
---
Makefile | 5 ++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 710f91c..2b517a1 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ endif
no-dot-config-targets := clean mrproper distclean \
cscope TAGS tags help %docs check% \
include/linux/version.h headers_% \
- kernelrelease kernelversion
+ kernelversion
config-targets := 0
mixed-targets := 0
@@ -1468,8 +1468,7 @@ checkstack:
$(PERL) $(src)/scripts/checkstack.pl $(CHECKSTACK_ARCH)
kernelrelease:
- $(if $(wildcard include/config/kernel.release), $(Q)echo $(KERNELRELEASE), \
- $(error kernelrelease not valid - run 'make prepare' to update it))
+ @echo $(kernelrelease)
kernelversion:
@echo $(KERNELVERSION)
--
1.6.5.2
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> From: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:42:28 +0800
>
> When I use make LOCALVERSION=local and LOCALVERSION_AUTO is not set,
> I got "2.6.35-rc3local". It is supposed to be "2.6.35-rc3-local".
>
No, a `-' is not implied when using LOCALVERSION=.
On 06/28/10 17:08, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>
>> From: Amerigo Wang<[email protected]>
>> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:42:28 +0800
>>
>> When I use make LOCALVERSION=local and LOCALVERSION_AUTO is not set,
>> I got "2.6.35-rc3local". It is supposed to be "2.6.35-rc3-local".
>>
>
> No, a `-' is not implied when using LOCALVERSION=.
But in your patch description, you said:
Without CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO, "make" results in v2.6.32-rc4+
unless the repository is at the Linux v2.6.32-rc4 commit (in which
case the version would be v2.6.32-rc4). If "make LOCALVERSION=kbuild"
were used, it results in v2.6.32-rc4-kbuild.
So, shouldn't that be "make LOCALVERSION=-kbuild"?
Thanks.
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Cong Wang wrote:
> But in your patch description, you said:
>
> Without CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO, "make" results in v2.6.32-rc4+
> unless the repository is at the Linux v2.6.32-rc4 commit (in which
> case the version would be v2.6.32-rc4). If "make LOCALVERSION=kbuild"
> were used, it results in v2.6.32-rc4-kbuild.
>
> So, shouldn't that be "make LOCALVERSION=-kbuild"?
>
Yup, that's what it should have said. That doesn't mean that we need to
change the long-standing behavior of LOCALVERSION= to add an implied `-',
though.
On 06/29/10 02:46, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> But in your patch description, you said:
>>
>> Without CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO, "make" results in v2.6.32-rc4+
>> unless the repository is at the Linux v2.6.32-rc4 commit (in which
>> case the version would be v2.6.32-rc4). If "make LOCALVERSION=kbuild"
>> were used, it results in v2.6.32-rc4-kbuild.
>>
>> So, shouldn't that be "make LOCALVERSION=-kbuild"?
>>
>
> Yup, that's what it should have said. That doesn't mean that we need to
> change the long-standing behavior of LOCALVERSION= to add an implied `-',
> though.
Ok, but your patch description is the only doc I found, so... :)
Thanks.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:01:06PM -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> From: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:45:21 +0800
>
> After commit 85a256d8e0116c8f5ad276730830f5d4d473344d, 'make kernelrelease' doesn't
> show the correct full kernel version. This patch fixes it, 'make kernelrelease' will
> show the same version name with the one you finally get.
>
> Cc: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michal Marek <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
> ---
> Makefile | 5 ++---
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 710f91c..2b517a1 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ endif
> no-dot-config-targets := clean mrproper distclean \
> cscope TAGS tags help %docs check% \
> include/linux/version.h headers_% \
> - kernelrelease kernelversion
> + kernelversion
>
> config-targets := 0
> mixed-targets := 0
> @@ -1468,8 +1468,7 @@ checkstack:
> $(PERL) $(src)/scripts/checkstack.pl $(CHECKSTACK_ARCH)
>
> kernelrelease:
> - $(if $(wildcard include/config/kernel.release), $(Q)echo $(KERNELRELEASE), \
> - $(error kernelrelease not valid - run 'make prepare' to update it))
> + @echo $(kernelrelease)
> kernelversion:
> @echo $(KERNELVERSION)
AFAICS it was broken even before 85a256d. Nevertheless, the patch is
correct, but conflicts with 0915512 in the kbuild tree. What about this
one?
>From 01ab17887f4cdcb8bb5a5d1bc3b160d186e6e99b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:45:21 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] Makefile: "make kernelrelease" should show the correct full kernel version
After commit 85a256d8e0116c8f5ad276730830f5d4d473344d, 'make kernelrelease'
doesn't show the correct full kernel version. This patch fixes it,
'make kernelrelease' will show the same version name with the one
you finally get.
Cc: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
Cc: Michal Marek <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
[mmarek: merged with 0915512 and added dependency on
include/config/kernel.release]
Signed-off-by: Michal Marek <[email protected]>
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index a86ac8c..dceb4f1 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ endif
no-dot-config-targets := clean mrproper distclean \
cscope TAGS tags help %docs check% \
include/linux/version.h headers_% \
- kernelrelease kernelversion
+ kernelversion
config-targets := 0
mixed-targets := 0
@@ -1395,9 +1395,9 @@ checkstack:
$(OBJDUMP) -d vmlinux $$(find . -name '*.ko') | \
$(PERL) $(src)/scripts/checkstack.pl $(CHECKSTACK_ARCH)
-kernelrelease:
- $(if $(wildcard include/config/kernel.release), $(Q)echo $(KERNELRELEASE), \
- $(error kernelrelease not valid - run 'make prepare' to update it))
+kernelrelease: include/config/kernel.release
+ @echo $(KERNELRELEASE)
+
kernelversion:
@echo $(KERNELVERSION)
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:46:37AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> > But in your patch description, you said:
> >
> > Without CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO, "make" results in v2.6.32-rc4+
> > unless the repository is at the Linux v2.6.32-rc4 commit (in which
> > case the version would be v2.6.32-rc4). If "make LOCALVERSION=kbuild"
> > were used, it results in v2.6.32-rc4-kbuild.
> >
> > So, shouldn't that be "make LOCALVERSION=-kbuild"?
> >
>
> Yup, that's what it should have said. That doesn't mean that we need to
> change the long-standing behavior of LOCALVERSION= to add an implied `-',
> though.
Agreed, we should not enforce any new policy here. Someone might wish to
use underscores as separators for instance.
Michal
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:13:15PM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
> AFAICS it was broken even before 85a256d. Nevertheless, the patch is
> correct, but conflicts with 0915512 in the kbuild tree.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mmarek/kbuild-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=0915512 . It is also in linux-next.
Michal
On 06/29/10 20:13, Michal Marek wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:01:06PM -0400, Amerigo Wang wrote:
>> From: Amerigo Wang<[email protected]>
>> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:45:21 +0800
>>
>> After commit 85a256d8e0116c8f5ad276730830f5d4d473344d, 'make kernelrelease' doesn't
>> show the correct full kernel version. This patch fixes it, 'make kernelrelease' will
>> show the same version name with the one you finally get.
>>
>> Cc: David Rientjes<[email protected]>
>> Cc: Michal Marek<[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Amerigo Wang<[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Makefile | 5 ++---
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>> index 710f91c..2b517a1 100644
>> --- a/Makefile
>> +++ b/Makefile
>> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ endif
>> no-dot-config-targets := clean mrproper distclean \
>> cscope TAGS tags help %docs check% \
>> include/linux/version.h headers_% \
>> - kernelrelease kernelversion
>> + kernelversion
>>
>> config-targets := 0
>> mixed-targets := 0
>> @@ -1468,8 +1468,7 @@ checkstack:
>> $(PERL) $(src)/scripts/checkstack.pl $(CHECKSTACK_ARCH)
>>
>> kernelrelease:
>> - $(if $(wildcard include/config/kernel.release), $(Q)echo $(KERNELRELEASE), \
>> - $(error kernelrelease not valid - run 'make prepare' to update it))
>> + @echo $(kernelrelease)
>> kernelversion:
>> @echo $(KERNELVERSION)
>
> AFAICS it was broken even before 85a256d. Nevertheless, the patch is
> correct, but conflicts with 0915512 in the kbuild tree. What about this
> one?
>
Hmm, I am not sure. IIRC, my first try was also using KERNELRELEASE but it
didn't work. Note, I may remember wrongly. :)
Have you tested it? Sorry that currently I don't have time to test it, I am
quite busy with other stuffs...
Thanks!
This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks like a
problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
$ make kernelrelease -d
[...]
Considering target file `kernelrelease'.
File `kernelrelease' does not exist.
Considering target file `include/config/kernel.release'.
Pruning file `include/config/auto.conf'.
Considering target file `FORCE'.
File `FORCE' does not exist.
Finished prerequisites of target file `FORCE'.
Must remake target `FORCE'.
Successfully remade target file `FORCE'.
Finished prerequisites of target file `include/config/kernel.release'.
Prerequisite `include/config/auto.conf' is older than target `include/config/kernel.release'.
Prerequisite `FORCE' of target `include/config/kernel.release' does not exist.
Must remake target `include/config/kernel.release'.
Thanks,
Brice
Le 28/06/2010 05:01, Amerigo Wang a ?crit :
> From: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:45:21 +0800
>
> After commit 85a256d8e0116c8f5ad276730830f5d4d473344d, 'make kernelrelease' doesn't
> show the correct full kernel version. This patch fixes it, 'make kernelrelease' will
> show the same version name with the one you finally get.
>
> Cc: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michal Marek <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Amerigo Wang <[email protected]>
> ---
> Makefile | 5 ++---
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 710f91c..2b517a1 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ endif
> no-dot-config-targets := clean mrproper distclean \
> cscope TAGS tags help %docs check% \
> include/linux/version.h headers_% \
> - kernelrelease kernelversion
> + kernelversion
>
> config-targets := 0
> mixed-targets := 0
> @@ -1468,8 +1468,7 @@ checkstack:
> $(PERL) $(src)/scripts/checkstack.pl $(CHECKSTACK_ARCH)
>
> kernelrelease:
> - $(if $(wildcard include/config/kernel.release), $(Q)echo $(KERNELRELEASE), \
> - $(error kernelrelease not valid - run 'make prepare' to update it))
> + @echo $(kernelrelease)
> kernelversion:
> @echo $(KERNELVERSION)
>
>
On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote:
> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks like a
> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
>
I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line,
so we need to regenerate it.
Or am I missing your point here?
--
The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
- Elie Wiesel
Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a ?crit :
> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks like a
>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
>>
>
> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line,
> so we need to regenerate it.
>
> Or am I missing your point here?
>
Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display
the release string (which means you would not need write access to the
kernel build dir). And indeed make help says:
kernelrelease - Output the release version string
Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way
display it too" (and you need write access).
Brice
On 08/18/10 16:38, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a ?crit :
>> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote:
>>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks like a
>>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
>>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
>>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
>>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
>>>
>>
>> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line,
>> so we need to regenerate it.
>>
>> Or am I missing your point here?
>>
>
> Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display
> the release string (which means you would not need write access to the
> kernel build dir). And indeed make help says:
> kernelrelease - Output the release version string
> Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way
> display it too" (and you need write access).
>
I believe you will also need write access even without this patch,
if you compile a fresh kernel. So your assumption is not correct.
--
The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
- Elie Wiesel
Le 18/08/2010 10:57, Cong Wang a ?crit :
> On 08/18/10 16:38, Brice Goglin wrote:
>> Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a ?crit :
>>> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote:
>>>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks
>>>> like a
>>>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
>>>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
>>>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
>>>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line,
>>> so we need to regenerate it.
>>>
>>> Or am I missing your point here?
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display
>> the release string (which means you would not need write access to the
>> kernel build dir). And indeed make help says:
>> kernelrelease - Output the release version string
>> Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way
>> display it too" (and you need write access).
>>
>
> I believe you will also need write access even without this patch,
> if you compile a fresh kernel. So your assumption is not correct.
>
If I revert 01ab17887f4, I don't need write access. Things always worked
fine before 2.6.36 as far I remember.
Brice
On 08/18/10 16:52, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Le 18/08/2010 10:57, Cong Wang a ?crit :
>> On 08/18/10 16:38, Brice Goglin wrote:
>>> Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a ?crit :
>>>> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote:
>>>>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks
>>>>> like a
>>>>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
>>>>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
>>>>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
>>>>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line,
>>>> so we need to regenerate it.
>>>>
>>>> Or am I missing your point here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display
>>> the release string (which means you would not need write access to the
>>> kernel build dir). And indeed make help says:
>>> kernelrelease - Output the release version string
>>> Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way
>>> display it too" (and you need write access).
>>>
>>
>> I believe you will also need write access even without this patch,
>> if you compile a fresh kernel. So your assumption is not correct.
>>
>
> If I revert 01ab17887f4, I don't need write access. Things always worked
> fine before 2.6.36 as far I remember.
>
Ah, I forgot Michal checked in a slightly different patch with mine. :)
Does the attached patch work for you?
---
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[email protected]>
Le 18/08/2010 11:20, Cong Wang a ?crit :
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index f3bdff8..25da252 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -1408,8 +1408,8 @@ checkstack:
> $(OBJDUMP) -d vmlinux $$(find . -name '*.ko') | \
> $(PERL) $(src)/scripts/checkstack.pl $(CHECKSTACK_ARCH)
>
> -kernelrelease: include/config/kernel.release
> - @echo $(KERNELRELEASE)
> +kernelrelease:
> + @echo "$(KERNELVERSION)$$($(CONFIG_SHELL) $(srctree)/scripts/setlocalversion $(srctree))"
>
> kernelversion:
> @echo $(KERNELVERSION)
>
It works, thanks!
Tested-by: Brice Goglin <[email protected]>
Brice