/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2016/10/12/#ubuntu-kernel.txt

=== _ruben_ is now known as _ruben
=== om26er is now known as om26er1
=== om26er1 is now known as om26er
pevsterHiya - not sure if this is the right channel but I have a question about how ubuntu deals with modules...?15:20
pevsterI'm trying to build a custom version of a module thats normally in the kernel (can.ko) but not sure if there's a way under ubuntu to do it without re-building / re-installing the stock kernel?15:22
pevsterIdeally UI'm looking for a pointer towards an existing example that I can just dissect ...15:22
apwpevster, you should be able to build against the "headers" in the normal way treating it as an out of tree driver15:40
apwof course if you have secure-boot in that environment you may have extra issues15:40
pevsterapw: Thanks - nope, no secure boot here...!15:40
pevsterapw: I also need to override a standard header, should that just work if I put my local include path ahead in the search?15:41
apwpevster, that i have not tried to do; i am rather spoilt as they builder i use for test builds takes 10m so i tend to just make a whole kernel15:42
apwpevster, though i would prolly just just ram over the one from the headers package as it is only used for these builds15:42
pevster10m? My machine takes about 3 (!) :-O15:43
pevsterFor me it's more that I want to keep the ubuntu kernel standard and roll out the two modules onto stock test machines...15:43
apwyep i can see the use case :)15:44
pevsterfeels a bit dirty though :-D15:44
pevsternot a fan of changing standard headers either but I can't see an alternate option...15:44
apwpevster, the headers an out of tree build uses are not /usr/include but only in /usr/src/* and only used for kernel module builds15:45
pevsterAh, thanks - I hadn't appreciated that! I'm used to normally just cross compiling whole kernels normally so this is a bit new!15:47
=== ghostcube_ is now known as ghostcube
jsalisburyom26er, Upstream is requesting some data and testing of a set of patches.  I posted the requests to the bug report.16:11
om26erjsalisbury: yes, I replied to the bug. the latest kernel does not change anything and I have attached the logs16:12
jsalisburyom26er, great, thanks for the update.  I'll see what they want to do next.16:12
pevsterapw: Thanks for your help ; got most of it working, but can't see how to force my clone of the header to take priority over the "proper" one -the "-I" flag doesnt quite cut it....17:13
apwpevster, i would just shove it into /usr/src over the top if it was me17:14
apwpevster, or like cp -lr /usr/src/<headers> to BUILD and then replace it in there, and build against that result 17:16
pevsterHm... At the moment I've bodged it in the source by using a relative local path and defined the same protection var name to prevent the "proper" one getting included. A bit cludgey though17:17
dgoulethi! so I'm having this problem since 4.8.y (vanilla) on Ubuntu with gcc 6.2.0-5ubuntu12:17:27
dgouletCannot use CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG: -fstack-protector-strong available but compiler is broken17:27
dgouletwhatever stackprotector I put, it fails with the same17:28
apwi think we specity gcc5 for the kernel build17:32
dgoulethrm intersting... this is still failing: "make CC=gcc-5 -j4"17:35
dgouletbut could be the detection script17:35
pevsterapw: Found it ; prepending LINUXINCLUDE17:39
apwpevster, sounds good17:53
eagleeyesinfinity: what does dkms do?18:17
eagleeyesafter the bcm kernel source package is installed does it need to have firmware cut?18:17
=== mamarley_ is now known as mamarley
=== hughhalf_ is now known as hughhalf

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!