From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:59310 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752671Ab1KBJoZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 05:44:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:39:35 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: Add 'make kvmconfig' Message-ID: <20111102093935.GB20916@elte.hu> References: <20111028070336.GF12995@elte.hu> <20111028075432.GB8626@elte.hu> <20111028120856.GA29174@citd.de> <20111028122902.GA25323@elte.hu> <20111028130535.GA2752@citd.de> <20111102084124.GB18771@elte.hu> <4EB1084F.4020206@suse.cz> <20111102091747.GH18903@elte.hu> <4EB10C3D.6090906@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EB10C3D.6090906@suse.cz> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michal Marek Cc: Matthias Schniedermeyer , Geert Uytterhoeven , Sam Ravnborg , Sasha Levin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Pekka Enberg , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org * Michal Marek wrote: > On 2.11.2011 10:17, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Michal Marek wrote: > >> On 2.11.2011 09:41, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> Yeah. Note that it's more like an 'add' operation, not a modify > >>> operation, thus: > >>> > >>> make addconfig=kvm > >>> > >>> or: > >>> > >>> make addconfig kvm > >>> > >>> would be intuitive and would work well too. > >>> > >>> Sam, Michal, which one would you prefer? The latter might have the > >>> advantage that it's additive, enabling future usages like: > >>> > >>> make addconfig kvm debug > >> > >> The problem is that neither of these fit into the make command syntax: > >> > >> make addconfig kvm debug > >> > >> tells make to build three different targets, and > >> > >> make addconfig=kvm > >> > >> tells make to create a variable named addconfig with the value kvm > >> and build the default target. And BTW, you or someone else > >> reassured me earlier in the thread that this is going to be needed > >> for the kvm case solely, so why are you inventing something generic > >> now? :) > > > > Because we are trying to find *something* that is both usable and > > which you guys are willing to ack. > > > > So what's your suggestion? Is 'make kvmconfig' OK? > > As I said, make kvmconfig is fine with me, if it's just this single case. > > Michal Great, thanks! Ingo