On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 12:17 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
quoted text
> Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 11:58 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Daniel,
> >>
> >> Possibly.
> >>
> >> A) Any suggestions on how? Can I express this in Kconfig or something
> >> (i.e. "depends on FOO").  I currently have "select FOO" in the BAR
> >> object, but this doesn't seem to be sufficient to describe the relationship.
> >>
> >> B) Do I have to make the entire chain follow suit? (I have C deps on B,
> >> B deps on A kind of scenarios)
> > 
> > Yeah, what Randy said .. As far as I know it should be just a build
> > order issue .. In the make file when you specify your new module along
> > with all the others where you put it is actually important .. In
> > fs/Makefile you have this line,
> > 
> > obj-$(CONFIG_CONFIGFS_FS)       += configfs/
> > 
> > and I would guess you want yours after that line if your adding to that
> > makefile.
> 
> Right, that makes sense.  However, the problem is that these
> dependencies might not have anything to do with ./fs per se and
> therefore would not necessarily be in the ./fs Makefile.  But I think
> the Makefile dependency idea in general is the right approach, so I will
> experiment with this suggestion.

I think the order for the core stuff is,

kernel/ mm/ fs/ ipc/ security/ crypto/ block/

and that all comes before drivers/ , so your adding to kernel/ or mm/ ?

Daniel

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/