Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH 33/33] utils/check-symbols: new script

[Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>]

Hello Ricardo,

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 20:38:45 -0300
Ricardo Martincoski <ricardo.martincoski@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is just a WIP!
> - it is ugly
> - it was not designed for performance (speed, RAM usage, ...)
> - it is poorly covered by unit tests
> - it has no help/usage
> - it has no debug options
> - it uses a hand-made database
> - it has a long list of false positives, ignored in the DB class
> - it does not support yet:
>   - rootfs
>   - virtual packages
>   - barebox
>   - linux extensions
> 
> ... but it gets some initial results
> 
> Someone willing to adopt this patch?

Does this imply that you are not interested/willing to push this
further up to a point where it can be merged?

> I don't know what to do with this symbol:
> package/fwts/Config.in:config BR2_PACKAGE_FWTS_EFI_RUNTIME_MODULE
> package/fwts/fwts.mk:ifdef BR2_PACKAGE_FWTS_EFI_RUNTIME_MODULE
> maybe one of below?
> 1) make the script to accept 'ifdef' as a valid usage for a menuconfig symbol
> 2) rework the package to use 'ifeq' like the other ones.

I would say convert to ifeq. However, there is something a bit
"special" done here:

ifdef BR2_PACKAGE_FWTS_EFI_RUNTIME_MODULE
FWTS_MODULE_SUBDIRS = efi_runtime
$(eval $(kernel-module))
endif

i.e the eval kernel-module is done within the condition. Is this the
reason for using ifdef instead of ifeq? I don't really see why, but
maybe I'm missing some aspect of GNU make sorcery. Which is why is in
Cc of this e-mail :-)

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot