On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 16:04 +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:46 AM Shengjing Zhu <i@zhsj.me> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 01:09:39AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > I agree, I don't think it makes much sense to build these OOT if > > > they > > > can be built in-tree. > > > > Here goes the bug #901492 (linux: Please enable Android ashmem and > > binder module) > > Is there any update about this? > It's it acceptable to enable the in-tree version, as built-in module? > Or it would be better to continue this dkms package as they can't be > built as modules? I needed to make some small changes to build them as modules. The next upload using Linux 4.17 should include ashmem_linux and binder_linux modules for amd64, arm64 and armhf. Ben. > > > > > The in-tree version of ashmem *cannot* be built as a module, > > > though, > > > which we would probably want to change. > > -- Ben Hutchings To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part