[PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[David Howells]

Remove empty Kbuild files as they cause problems with the patch program which
removes files that become empty.

Should I also remove include/Kbuild as that now does nothing?  Or should it be
left as an anchor just in case we want it in future?

Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
---

 include/Kbuild         |    3 ---
 include/scsi/Kbuild    |    1 -
 include/scsi/fc/Kbuild |    0 
 include/video/Kbuild   |    0 
 4 files changed, 4 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 include/scsi/Kbuild
 delete mode 100644 include/scsi/fc/Kbuild
 delete mode 100644 include/video/Kbuild

diff --git a/include/Kbuild b/include/Kbuild
index 1dfd33e..bab1145 100644
--- a/include/Kbuild
+++ b/include/Kbuild
@@ -1,5 +1,2 @@
 # Top-level Makefile calls into asm-$(ARCH)
 # List only non-arch directories below
-
-header-y += video/
-header-y += scsi/
diff --git a/include/scsi/Kbuild b/include/scsi/Kbuild
deleted file mode 100644
index 562ff9d..0000000
--- a/include/scsi/Kbuild
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1 +0,0 @@
-header-y += fc/
diff --git a/include/scsi/fc/Kbuild b/include/scsi/fc/Kbuild
deleted file mode 100644
index e69de29..0000000
diff --git a/include/video/Kbuild b/include/video/Kbuild
deleted file mode 100644
index e69de29..0000000

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:48:53 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> Remove empty Kbuild files as they cause problems with the patch program which
> removes files that become empty.
> 
> Should I also remove include/Kbuild as that now does nothing?  Or should it be
> left as an anchor just in case we want it in future?

I think that if the build system created it, a `make clean' or `make
mproper' should rub it out again.  Ideally a `make mrproper' will give
you a tree which is identical to a freshly-untarred kernel.org tarball
(yes?).

Which reminds me of my email which you're still hiding from ;)
Shouldn't a `make mrproper' undo the effects of `make headers_install'
by wiping ./usr/include/?

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[David Howells]

Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > Remove empty Kbuild files as they cause problems with the patch program
> > which removes files that become empty.
> > 
> > Should I also remove include/Kbuild as that now does nothing?  Or should
> > it be left as an anchor just in case we want it in future?
> 
> I think that if the build system created it, a `make clean' or `make
> mproper' should rub it out again.  Ideally a `make mrproper' will give
> you a tree which is identical to a freshly-untarred kernel.org tarball
> (yes?).

Ummm...  What's that got to do with it?  include/Kbuild is part of the
sources: make clean/mrproper/distclean should not be removing it.

> Which reminds me of my email which you're still hiding from ;)
> Shouldn't a `make mrproper' undo the effects of `make headers_install'
> by wiping ./usr/include/?

Ummm...

	warthog>cp .../.config .
	warthog>make -j12 >&/dev/null
	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
	873
	warthog>make distclean >&/dev/null
	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
	find: `usr/include/': No such file or directory
	0

and:

	warthog>cp .../.config .
	warthog>make -j12 >&/dev/null
	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
	873
	warthog>make mrproper >&/dev/null
	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
	find: `usr/include/': No such file or directory
	0

so I don't see the problem.

David

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:59:43 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Remove empty Kbuild files as they cause problems with the patch program
> > > which removes files that become empty.
> > > 
> > > Should I also remove include/Kbuild as that now does nothing?  Or should
> > > it be left as an anchor just in case we want it in future?
> > 
> > I think that if the build system created it, a `make clean' or `make
> > mproper' should rub it out again.  Ideally a `make mrproper' will give
> > you a tree which is identical to a freshly-untarred kernel.org tarball
> > (yes?).
> 
> Ummm...  What's that got to do with it?  include/Kbuild is part of the
> sources: make clean/mrproper/distclean should not be removing it.

Obviously, I thought you were referring to build-time operations.

> > Which reminds me of my email which you're still hiding from ;)
> > Shouldn't a `make mrproper' undo the effects of `make headers_install'
> > by wiping ./usr/include/?
> 
> Ummm...
> 
> 	warthog>cp .../.config .
> 	warthog>make -j12 >&/dev/null
> 	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
> 	873
> 	warthog>make distclean >&/dev/null
> 	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
> 	find: `usr/include/': No such file or directory
> 	0
> 
> and:
> 
> 	warthog>cp .../.config .
> 	warthog>make -j12 >&/dev/null
> 	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
> 	873
> 	warthog>make mrproper >&/dev/null
> 	warthog>find usr/include/ | wc -l
> 	find: `usr/include/': No such file or directory
> 	0
> 
> so I don't see the problem.

Well damn.  I tested this a few days ago and a `make mrproper' didn't
remove usr/include.  Did something change recently?  If not, something
odd is going on.  I definitely tested it.

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[David Howells]

Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> Obviously, I thought you were referring to build-time operations.

I want to know whether I should extend my patch to remove include/Kbuild and
any refs to it.

> > so I don't see the problem.
>
> Well damn.  I tested this a few days ago and a `make mrproper' didn't
> remove usr/include.  Did something change recently?  If not, something
> odd is going on.  I definitely tested it.

I haven't changed anything.

David

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[Michal Marek]

On 26.3.2013 22:27, David Howells wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> Obviously, I thought you were referring to build-time operations.
> 
> I want to know whether I should extend my patch to remove include/Kbuild and
> any refs to it.

make headers_install starts at include/uapi, so include/Kbuild is not
needed. And new exported headers end up in inclde/uapi, so there will
probably not be need for include/Kbuild in the future either. IMO, just
remove it.

Michal

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[David Howells]

Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:

> > I want to know whether I should extend my patch to remove include/Kbuild and
> > any refs to it.
> 
> make headers_install starts at include/uapi, so include/Kbuild is not
> needed. And new exported headers end up in inclde/uapi, so there will
> probably not be need for include/Kbuild in the future either. IMO, just
> remove it.

That's not all Kbuild does.  It also handles autogenerated headers.

David

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[Michal Marek]

On 26.3.2013 23:54, David Howells wrote:
> Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
>>> I want to know whether I should extend my patch to remove include/Kbuild and
>>> any refs to it.
>>
>> make headers_install starts at include/uapi, so include/Kbuild is not
>> needed. And new exported headers end up in inclde/uapi, so there will
>> probably not be need for include/Kbuild in the future either. IMO, just
>> remove it.
> 
> That's not all Kbuild does.  It also handles autogenerated headers.

That's true. But include/generated is handled by the main Makefile
directly as well.

Michal

Re: [PATCH] UAPI: Remove empty Kbuild files

[David Howells]

Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:

> >>> I want to know whether I should extend my patch to remove include/Kbuild
> >>> and any refs to it.
> >>
> >> make headers_install starts at include/uapi, so include/Kbuild is not
> >> needed. And new exported headers end up in inclde/uapi, so there will
> >> probably not be need for include/Kbuild in the future either. IMO, just
> >> remove it.
> > 
> > That's not all Kbuild does.  It also handles autogenerated headers.
> 
> That's true. But include/generated is handled by the main Makefile
> directly as well.

But there are generated header files that aren't so handled - though those are
only currently to be found in arch/.  I don't mind removing it, it's just that
I don't want to preclude anyone's use of it.

David