[vbox-dev] Fix for Kernel 5.x
sergio at serjux.com
Sun Aug 4 12:08:55 UTC 2019
On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:46 -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jun 2019 08:48:15 +0100, S?rgio Basto said:
> > 'SUBDIRS' will be removed after Linux 5.3
> > Please use 'M=' or 'KBUILD_EXTMOD' instead
> > - ifeq ($(shell if grep '"\.'
> > $(KERN_DIR)/include/linux/version.h > /dev/null 2>&1; then echo
> > yes; fi),yes)
> > + ifeq ($(shell if grep '"\.'
> > $(KERN_DIR)/include/linux/version.h /dev/null 2>&1; then echo yes;
> > fi),yes)
> I submitted a more correct patch back in March, which did the right
> and changed all the SUBDIRS= to M=, though I admit I didn't go near
> script (I only adressed the actual kernel module tree that ends up in
> I admit not even being sure what this code used to be trying to do,
> or why
> this patch seems to work for you. Hint: It's looking for "any
> number other than a 1,
> followed by a period". At least in my kernel tree, what I have is:
> [/usr/src/linux-next] cat include/generated/uapi/linux/version.h
> #define LINUX_VERSION_CODE 328192
> #define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + (c))
> Which means that neither \. or [2-9]\. is ever going to match.
> in the version.h file your script is trying to work with?
> I'm not sure what version.h this script is looking at, but unless
> there's a
> '1.' and no other digits followed by a period anywhere in the file,
> it's going
> to find it.
> Hint: (a) your patch will mysteriously break if we ever get to an
> kernel, and (b) It doesn't DTRT in distinguishing between a 2.4.X and
> a 2.6.X
> kernel, which is what actually matters for SUBDIRS/M.
> M= has been supported for forever.
> commit 0126be38d98815d25d9ec4573541ed4315bf6a88
> Author: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro at socionext.com>
> Date: Wed Nov 21 00:04:18 2018 +0900
> kbuild: announce removal of SUBDIRS if used
> SUBDIRS has been kept as a backward compatibility since
> commit ("[PATCH] kbuild: external module support") in 2002.
> In other words, since the 2.6.0 kernel. If somebody is trying to
> VirtualBox on a 2.4 or earlier kernel, this is the *least* of their
I wonder if Virtualbox 6.0.10 have any fix for this subject ? Since my
patch still applies cleanly .
Sérgio M. B.
More information about the vbox-dev