Re: [PATCH 2/2] kbuild: Move gen_init_cpio and gen_initramfs.sh to scripts/

[Nicolas Schier <nsc@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:13:29AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 08:14:36AM +0100, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 02:41:53PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 08:56:30AM +0100, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> 
> (...)
> 
> > > > @@ -1437,9 +1437,9 @@ ifdef CONFIG_HEADERS_INSTALL
> > > >  prepare: headers
> > > >  endif
> > > >  
> > > > -PHONY += usr_gen_init_cpio
> > > > -usr_gen_init_cpio: scripts_basic
> > > > -	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=usr usr/gen_init_cpio
> > > > +PHONY += scripts/gen_init_cpio
> > > > +scripts/gen_init_cpio: scripts_basic
> > > > +	$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=scripts scripts/gen_init_cpio
> > > 
> > > The other proxy targets for scripts/ use the 'scripts_' prefix.
> > > Why is this one different?
> > 
> > Good question; I was ambiguous about that, but I chose 'scripts/' in
> > favor of 'scripts_' as
> > 
> > 1. The $(obj)/initramfs_data.cpio target in usr/Makefile has to depend
> >    on 'scripts/gen_init_cpio' regardless of how the top-level target is
> >    called, as the sub-make cannot depend on a phony top-level rule.
> >    If possible, I like to have the same name for dependencies as for the
> >    rule that generates them.
> > 
> > 2. I cannot see the reason for the 'scripts_' prefix currently used in
> >    top-level Makefile for real targets building a single output file.
> >    It seems to me that commit bdd7714b6f4c ("kbuild: build all
> >    prerequisites of headers_install simultaneously") introduced the
> >    'scripts_' prefix due to the historic origin 'scripts_basic'; which
> >    itself came with commit 952a0ae394f4 ("[PATCH] Fix early parallel
> >    make failures", v2.6.5) [1].  I _guess_ the 'scripts_' prefix was
> >    meant to clearly make a difference from the previous 'scripts'
> >    target, and the name makes clear that it is a phony target building
> >    several things.
> > 
> > Masahiro, if you are around I'd appreciate a comment from you.
> > 
> > [1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/history/history.git/commit/?id=952a0ae394f4
> > 
> > Thomas, does the reasoning make sense to you?  Or do you expect troubles
> > due to the 'scripts/' prefix?
> 
> Sounds reasonable. Personally I would still prefer consistency, but that is
> subjective of course.

I'll be considering that.

> In any case:
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>

Thanks!