Re: [for-4.19][PATCH] build: Allow setting KBUILD_DEFCONFIG in the environment

[Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@amd.com>]

Hi,

On 25/10/2023 11:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
> 
> On 25.10.2023 10:28, Michal Orzel wrote:
>> At the moment, in order to use a different defconfig target than default,
>> one needs to specify KBUILD_DEFCONFIG=<target> on the command line.
>> Switch to weak assignment, so that it can be also obtained from
>> environment similar to other KCONFIG/KBUILD variables.
>>
>> This change will activate the use of KBUILD_DEFCONFIG variable in CI
>> build jobs that so far had no effect.
> 
> I'm certainly okay with the change, but the above sentence looks misleading
> to me: Yes, the envvar was ignored so far, but isn't it the case that the
> envvar as specified in CI matches what Makefile set it to (taking into
> account that for RISC-V riscv64_defconfig aliases tiny64_defconfig), and
> hence the specifications in build.yaml could be dropped (until such time
> where truly an override was intended)?
Well, today riscv64_defconfig matches tiny64_defconfig but it can change. Otherwise, why
would we need to have 2 identical files? Looking at the latest full build series from Oleksi,
only the tiny64_defconfig file gets updated which would be the clear indication that what is
specified in the CI matches the author's expectation.

Also, I never mentioned that this change fixes something. I just wrote that it gives a meaning
to a variable that so far had no effect.

~Michal