Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:07:38 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: do we need full kernel sources to compile loadable modules ? Message-ID: <20020305230738.C13979@phoenix.dmnshq.net> In-Reply-To: <20020305134932.A79697@iguana.icir.org>; from rizzo@icir.org on Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:49:32PM -0800 References: <20020305134932.A79697@iguana.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 01:49:32PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> Plain and simple... I thought one could compile a kernel extension
> (foo.ko) without full kernel sources, as the various include files
> describing kernel interfaces and data structures are installed in
> various places under /usr/include .
> This seems to work fine in many cases.
>
> Turns out, however, that at least one thing (namely vnode_if.h) is not
> there, and it needs to be reconstructed using sys/kern/vnode_if.{pl,src}
>
> So i wonder:
>
> + is it a desirable goal that one can compile kernel extensions without
> requiring a full kernel source tree ?
>
> + if so, shouldn't we make sure that, as part of the creation of
> /usr/include, a copy of vnode_if.h is generated somewhere (maybe
> in /usr/include/sys or wherever is more appropriate) ?
>
> + are there other header files (and maybe objects, e.g. there is also
> a vnode_if.o) which have similar problems ?
There is probably similar problems with newbus. We have previously talked
about making vnode_if.src be handled similar to syscalls.master - ie, generate
files from it, then commit those files.
I don't think there would be many protests if this was implemented (in a clean
fashion).
Eivind.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020305230738.C13979>