Re: [PATCH] Makefile: rust-analyzer target: better error handling and comments

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:31:53AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:13 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > What exactly did you have in mind for how that should look? The
> > "make rustavailable" target has some leading *** and some bare
> > statements, so I'm not quite sure exactly how to lay it out:
> 
> I was thinking something like:
> 
>     ***
>     *** Rust is not available.
>     ***
> 
> (the `***` prefix is used also in other similar scripts and by Make itself).
> 
> However, thinking about it a bit more, we should perhaps just let
> `rust_is_available.sh` tell the user why it fails, since it is likely
> the next step the user would do anyway:
> 
>     $ make LLVM=1 rust-analyzer
>     ***
>     *** Rust compiler 'rustc' is too old.
>     ***   Your version:    1.62.0
>     ***   Minimum version: 1.78.0
>     ***
>     ***
>     *** Please see Documentation/rust/quick-start.rst for details
>     *** on how to set up the Rust support.
>     ***
>     make[1]: *** [linux/Makefile:1973: rust-analyzer] Error 1
>     make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
> 
> What do you think? Then there is no need for extra output here and the
> patch becomes simpler too.

As someone who just ran into the "wait, how do I get rust to build on
this machine again?" problem, yes, having the link to the documentation
right there would be helpful.  I did know where to find it, but others
might not, and it's free to add.

thanks,

greg k-h