From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@infradead.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 10:49:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120331084908.GA14149@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120330161526.GE30876@aftab>
* Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 07:26:05AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > $ make tools/<toolname> tinstall
> > But this makes no sense.
> >
> > It would be better to be consistent - so the user does not need to remember
> > when to add a space and when not.
> >
> > make tools/<command> where <command> is one of help, install, clean, "nothing"
> > make tools/<toolname>
> > make tools/<toolname>_<comand> where command is the same set of commands
> >
> >
> > then a user could do:
> >
> > make tools/clean
> > make tools/perf
> > make tools/perf_install
> >
> > or
> >
> > make tools/clean
> > make tools/
> > make tools/install
>
> This one I had hard time imagining: who would install all
> tools but I guess it could have it's use...
regression testing?
> > The install target could implicitly include the build
> > target.
> >
> > With this scheme the user is up to less suprises.
> >
> > All the above are only minor adjustments compared to what
> > you already did. bt the consistency here is a gain (IMO).
>
> ... but yeah, those make sense to me too, let's see what the
> others think, Arnaldo, Ingo?
Well, if Sam and Michal are fine with it I'm a happy camper.
One question. Instead of:
make tools/perf_install
Couldnt we beat kbuild into submission to allow the much more
obvious:
make tools/perf install
?
I don't think anyone would expect the *kernel* to be installed
in such a circumstance - so it's only a question of making the
Makefile understand it, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-31 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-29 12:25 [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile Borislav Petkov
2012-03-29 12:25 ` [PATCH 1/4] tools: Add Makefile.include Borislav Petkov
2012-03-29 12:25 ` [PATCH 2/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile Borislav Petkov
2012-03-29 12:25 ` [PATCH 3/4] tools: Add a help target Borislav Petkov
2012-03-29 12:25 ` [PATCH 4/4] tools: Connect to the kernel build system Borislav Petkov
2012-03-30 5:26 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile Sam Ravnborg
2012-03-30 16:15 ` Borislav Petkov
2012-03-31 8:49 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2012-03-31 18:49 ` Sam Ravnborg
2012-04-01 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-04-01 9:22 ` Borislav Petkov
2012-04-02 15:15 ` Borislav Petkov
2012-04-02 10:18 ` Milton Miller
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=20120331084908.GA14149@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@amd64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mmarek@suse.cz \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.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