Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 18:40:21 +0200
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Such=E1nek?= <msuchanek@suse.de>
To:     Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc:     linux-modules@vger.kernel.org, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.com>,
        Lucas De Marchi <lucas.de.marchi@gmail.com>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH kmod v5 0/5] kmod /usr support
Message-ID: <20231017164021.GL6241@kitsune.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1689589902.git.msuchanek@suse.de>
 <cover.1689681454.git.msuchanek@suse.de>
 <20231017154539.GK6241@kitsune.suse.cz>
 <iplnlgb5mxrltogppm2buz63unviqrziwf7liob6mht6yl776l@3j2dzm7nbs3i>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <iplnlgb5mxrltogppm2buz63unviqrziwf7liob6mht6yl776l@3j2dzm7nbs3i>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:18:23AM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 05:45:39PM +0200, Michal Such?nek wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > it has been a few months since these kmod patches have been posted, and
> > a new kmod versio has been released since.
> > 
> > Is there any interest in adding this to kmod?
> 
> yes, but I think the main drag is deciding with the kernel build system
> maintainers what they are willing to accept as an interface. There isn't
> much point in exporting a json config if from the kernel side they would
> rather use something else. Or to use pkg-config.
> 
> I confess I lost track of that discussion. Did that settle with
> pkg-config being the preferred solution?

The current discussion about the kernel side can be found here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kbuild/20231017151050.GJ6241@kitsune.suse.cz/T/#t

My impression is that pkg-config is accepted as an interface on the
basis that it's already required for building the kernel while jq is
currently required only for some additional optional tools.

Thanks

Michal