Hi, could somebody help us on this? We are blocked somehow by this, of couse we can remove the "autoconf.h" before we build our software depending on OFED, but I don't think it's the supposed way...
Regards Liang Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:01 -0800, Jeff Becker wrote: > >> Hi Brian >> > > Hi (again) Jeff (and everyone else, especially however maintains the > packaging of /usr/src/ofa_kernel), > > >> Brian J. Murrell wrote: >> >>> Some research has led me to a message >>> (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg18161.html) >>> from Jeff Becker back on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:58:53 -0700 in which he >>> submitted a patch to integrate NFSRDMA into OFED 1.4 which is what appears >>> to have brought these changes into OFED 1.4. >>> > > The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced there is either an angle > I am completely missing or this is just plainly not the way to do this. > > It just cannot work to have two "linux/autoconf.h" files for a third > (where the first two parties are OFED and the kernel) party module > build. There is no guarantee that the third party module won't need to > query about various CONFIG_ definitions of both the kernel and the OFED > stack. > > The only way I can think of making this work is to "somehow" "unionize" > these two files (i.e. so there is a single "superset" of them both). > Perhaps it's doable with some kind of #include_next magic, perhaps not. > > >> I usually build my kernel first (usually with NFS). Then I build OFED. >> > > Right. This is simple enough. It's when you want to build another > kernel module that wants the OFED stack that things get sticky. > > I realize this is probably not really your area of responsibility and > this dual autoconf.h problem pre-existed your patch, but your patch has > really exacerbated the issue by directly conflicting (CONFIG_SYSCTL is > the particular example I have on hand at the moment) some of the non-IB > kernel defines. > > I'd love to engage whoever is directly responsible for this area of the > stack but nobody seems to be responding to my queries or the bug which I > filed yesterday (which is admittedly a short time ago). I'd try just > posting a patch to fix it, but I think this needs some discussion on how > to really achieve the end goal. > > Cheers, > b. > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
