On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 09:33:08 -0500 Kyle Evans <kevans_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:27 AM Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya_at_gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 4, 2019, at 04:59, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > > > > > On: > > > > > > Repository Root: svn+ssh://repo.freebsd.org/base > > > Repository UUID: ccf9f872-aa2e-dd11-9fc8-001c23d0bc1f > > > Revision: 351809 > > > > > > I built a kernel, but drm-current-kmod did not get compiled > > > from the new world order in /usr/local/sys/modules > > > > > > Debugging I ended up doing this to src/sys/conf/kern.post.mk: > > > > > > Index: sys/conf/kern.post.mk > > > =================================================================== > > > --- sys/conf/kern.post.mk (revision 351809) > > > +++ sys/conf/kern.post.mk (working copy) > > > _at__at_ -77,12 +77,14 _at__at_ > > > ${target:S/^reinstall$/install/:S/^clobber$/cleandir/} > > > .endif > > > .for module in ${LOCAL_MODULES} > > > -.if !empty(module) > > > + true "XXX A $(module) 2 ${LOCALBASE} 3 ${LOCAL_MODULES} 4 ${MODULES_WITH_WORLD}" > > > +#.if !empty(module) > > > + true "XXX B $(module) 2 ${LOCALBASE} 3 ${LOCAL_MODULES} 4 ${MODULES_WITH_WORLD}" > > > _at_${ECHODIR} "===> ${module} (${target:S/^reinstall$/install/:S/^clobber$/cleandir/})" > > > _at_cd ${LOCAL_MODULES_DIR}/${module}; ${MKMODULESENV} ${MAKE} \ > > > DIRPRFX="${module}/" \ > > > ${target:S/^reinstall$/install/:S/^clobber$/cleandir/} > > > -.endif > > > +#.endif > > > .endfor > > > .endif > > > .endfor > > > > > > This gives me the expected output from buildkernel: > > > > > > true "XXX A drm-current-kmod 2 /usr/local 3 drm-current-kmod 4 " > > > true "XXX B drm-current-kmod 2 /usr/local 3 drm-current-kmod 4 " > > > > > > If I leave in the ".if !empty(module)" line in, I only get: > > > > > > true "XXX A drm-current-kmod 2 /usr/local 3 drm-current-kmod 4 " > > > > > > suggestions welcome... > > > > (CCing Kyle) > > > > This behavior change is probably caused by r351799. > > > > I personally think the code before Kyle___s change and after it was buggy. It___s not word splitting LOCAL_MODULES before iterating over it. > > > > I've backed out r351799 since it breaks usage of LOCAL_MODULES (though > I really don't understand how empty works, apparently, and that makes > me sad)... please advise on a correct path forward, because it's not > clear to me. > In Kyle's defence my testing of his patch was only with LOCAL_MODULES= and LOCAL_MODULES="" in /etc/src.conf. I don't have any ports modules to be compiled with the kernel. -- Gary JennejohnReceived on Wed Sep 04 2019 - 12:47:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:21 UTC