[ofa-general] ofed kernel config.mk / BACKPORT_INCLUDES

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 16:35 +0100, Guy Coates wrote:
> Hi Brian;

Hi Guy,

> cat config.mk
> BACKPORT_INCLUDES=-I${CWD}/kernel_addons/backport/2.6.22/include/

I believe that is wrong and is a result of the first patch in your
previous e-mail.

Certainly in the 1.4.1 build I did here for all of my testing, I have:

$ cat config.mk 
BACKPORT_INCLUDES=-I/usr/src/ofa_kernel/kernel_addons/backport/2.6.18-EL5.3/include/

And of course, once the first issue is fixed, your second issue, with
the lustre configure script, will go away.

> That is obviously wrong.
> 
> 
> If I run the lustre configure, I get:
> 
> 
> ./configure --with-o2ib=/usr/src/modules/ofa-kernel
> --with-linux=/scratch/linux-2.6.22.19
> 
> <snip>
> checking whether to enable OpenIB gen2 support... no
> configure: error: can't compile with OpenIB gen2 headers under
> /usr/src/modules/ofa-kernel

Of course you do, because the config.mk is wrong.

> EXTRA_LNET_INCLUDE='-I-I/kernel_addons/backport/2.6.22/include/
> -I/usr/src/modules/ofa-kernel/include'

Right.  Because the sed failed to accomplish it's replacement and took
the value from the config.mk verbatim.  As I said, once the root issue,
with config.mk is fixed, the lustre configure issue will also resolve.

> If I fix config.mk so that the correct path is present:
> 
> 
> cat config.mk
> BACKPORT_INCLUDES=-I/usr/src/modules/kernel_addons/backport/2.6.22/include/
                               ^^^^^^^
That's because you are relocating the sources during your ofa_kernel
build to something other than the default.  The code in the lustre
configure is assuming the default location.  Arguably lustre's configure
should handle this.  Please file a bug.

> With the two patches previously sent, everything builds

For you.  It still does not accomplish the goals of the original design
of that code in the configure script.

But the lustre configure discussion really does not belong on this list.
After you have filed your bug you should summarize in a followup to
lustre-discuss (removing this list from your followup) given that it was
not included on the CC list of this message.

b.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20090810/532501f6/attachment.sig>