From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.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: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:42:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120401084253.GB21108@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120331184906.GA25809@merkur.ravnborg.org>
* Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> >
> > One question. Instead of:
> >
> > make tools/perf_install
> >
> > Couldnt we beat kbuild into submission to allow the much more
> > obvious:
> >
> > make tools/perf install
> >
> > ?
> It is more obvious if you look at it alone.
> But when you look at it with the other commands then you suddenly
> end up confused when you need to specify the command as a
> separate target "tools/perf install - and when it is just
> one target "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?
> Make will try to update the two targets "tools/perf" and "install"
> in parallel. And it does not look easy to teach make that when you
> specify the target "tools/*" then the install target should just
> be ignored and passed down to the sub-make.
>
> Anything that adds more complexity to the top-level Makefile should
> be avoided if at all possible. It is un-maintainable as-is.
> And the consistency issue is also important.
>
> I know that if I do "make install" the kernel will be installed.
> So one could argue that the same should apply to
> the targets below tools/.
> But then this should be for all targets and not just install.
> If someone come up with a clean way to do so it is fine.
> but the original proposal with "tinstall" just do not cut it.
'tinstall' is definitely out, no argument about that.
Viable options are:
tools/perf install
tools/perf_install
tools/perf-install
I'm fine with either one.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-01 8:43 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
2012-03-31 18:49 ` Sam Ravnborg
2012-04-01 8:42 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
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=20120401084253.GB21108@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