Linux kbuild/kconfig development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Tool directory build problem..
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 13:25:12 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250929182512.GA1394437@ax162> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgYcmBXuE8OMoDF6vGwk9n_2XdwWbuh-5b0w0g7w-NK=g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Linus,

On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:23:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It doesn't work for that pfrut tool because the top-level Makefile
> rule does this:
> 
>     $(Q)$(MAKE) LDFLAGS= O=$(abspath $(objtree)) subdir=tools -C
> $(srctree)/tools/ $*
> 
> and that "LDFLAGS=" is an overriding variable assignment, so the use of
> 
>     LDFLAGS += -luuid
> 
> in tools/power/acpi/tools/pfrut/Makefile end sup not working.
> 
> But it works in all other situations, just not when build this way
> from the top. Annoying.
> 
> I'm not sure *why* the top-level Makefile does that "LDFLAGS="
> override thing. It doesn't do it for anything else. Just that LDFLAGS
> variable.
> 
> Yes, yes, the ACPI tool makefile could then use
> 
>     override LDFLAGS += -luuid
> 
> but why would it do something as crazy as that?
> 
> That "LDFLAGS=" override goes back many many years,  In fact, it goes
> back to the very initial addition of those rules in commit
> ea01fa9f63ae ("tools: Connect to the kernel build system").
> 
> So I have no idea why it exists. Just removing the "LDFLAGS=" override
> seems to fix everything for me, but I must be missing something.

It looks like prior to commit d503ac531a52 ("kbuild: rename LDFLAGS to
KBUILD_LDFLAGS") in 4.19, LDFLAGS was used throughout Kbuild so I
suspect that LDFLAGS= was there to avoid poluting the tools build with
the flags from the main kernel build. Given the rename, it seems like
you should be able to remove LDFLAGS= from the tools target without any
problems.

I generally agree with Masahiro's prior comments around the tools/ build
system (especially hooking into it for the main kernel build) but I do
not see a good reason to break the tools/% target patterns if they are
not overly broken or hard to maintain :)

Cheers,
Nathan

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-09-29 18:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-27 18:23 Tool directory build problem Linus Torvalds
2025-09-27 20:18 ` Nicolas Schier
2025-09-29 18:25 ` Nathan Chancellor [this message]
2025-09-29 18:29   ` Linus Torvalds

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250929182512.GA1394437@ax162 \
    --to=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nicolas@fjasle.eu \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox