From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754744Ab2C1HZe (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:25:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]:62746 "EHLO mail-wi0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752856Ab2C1HZd (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:25:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:25:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov , Michal Marek , Sam Ravnborg Cc: Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile Message-ID: <20120328072528.GA22885@gmail.com> References: <1332513788-9726-1-git-send-email-bp@amd64.org> <20120324074412.GE20145@gmail.com> <20120326122632.GC32090@aftab> <20120326151432.GA8527@gmail.com> <20120326154132.GJ32090@aftab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120326154132.GJ32090@aftab> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:14:32PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 08:44:12AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > Could this also be accessible via 'make tools' in the toplevel > > > > Makefile? > > > > > > > > I'd love to be able to type: > > > > > > > > make -j tools perf install > > > > > > Well, > > > > > > you could do > > > > > > $ make -j -C tools perf > > > > Arguably I could also type: > > > > cd tools/perf; make -j install > > > > :-) > > > > So I just wanted to bring this up, that integrating it into the > > top level Makefile might make sense. Or not. > > Right, > > so from dealing with make in the last days, I can say that it's not a > fun walk in the park :). The problem is having multiple targets like the > following: > > $ make -j tools perf install > > I have to be able to differentiate in the Makefile which of the targets > is a directory ("tools"), which is the actual tool name to build > ("perf") and which is a special target ("install") which relates to the > tool name coming before it on the command line and is not the "install" > target of the main Makefile. > > And it becomes nasty very fast if you reorder them > > $ make -j install perf tools > > where all that sequential info doesn't mean anything anymore. > > So, the question is, what we actually want? > > $ make -j tools perf install > > is pretty cryptic wrt to which target we're actually building and having > the -C switch makes stuff a bit clearer IMHO: > > $ make -j -C tools perf install > > Also, having "install" as the last target means IMO to build the tool > before it and then install it. > > In the end of the day, probably the most important thing is what is > the use case for tools/ which makes most sense. I definitely think the > 'help' target is a step in that direction. Being able to do > > $ make -C tools > > and it give you a short description is pretty helpful. > > How about we have: > > make tools- install > > or > > make tools/perf install > > from the toplevel kernel directory? Would that make more sense from a > usability perspective? I have no strong preference currently. I think since it affects kbuild it would be nice to know the opinion of the kbuild folks (Cc:-ed): how should the integration of tools/ proceed? Thanks, Ingo