Thanks for the clarification, I get it now. I will send v2 later today. On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:12 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 02:04:26PM +0300, Igor Ryzhov wrote: > > Bruce, > > From my understanding, kernel_dir is a directory with kernel headers > > needed > > for modules building. > > Right now, yes. I'd suggest that we change that to the actual kernel > modules directory, and we get both the build directory and the install > directory based off that. > > > When it's formed automatically, yes, it will be > > "/lib/modules/version/build" and we can get installation directory by > > stripping > > "/build". > > Well, I'd suggest if we query the value automatically we don't both adding > the build, and just add that later when building the modules, i.e. > kernel_dir should always be the the base directory without "build" on it. > > > But when it's set manually, it can be set to, for example, > > "/usr/src/linux-headers-version", and build will be successful, but we > > won't be > > able to strip "/build" as there is no "/build". > > Which path should be used for installation in cross-compile case, when > > the > > kernel_dir is set manually? > > The stripping "build" was just a suggestion to allow the value to be > specified either with or without the "build/" suffix and have things work. > For the paths specified in the cross-compile case, my thinking was that we > would: > * build using <kernel_dir>/build > * install to <kernel_dir>/extra/dpdk > > as with the non-cross-compile case. > > /Bruce > >
