From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751786Ab2DAInC (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 04:43:02 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:56003 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751113Ab2DAIm6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 04:42:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:42:53 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Borislav Petkov , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Michal Marek , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile Message-ID: <20120401084253.GB21108@gmail.com> References: <1333023957-22746-1-git-send-email-bp@amd64.org> <20120330052605.GA30508@merkur.ravnborg.org> <20120330161526.GE30876@aftab> <20120331084908.GA14149@gmail.com> <20120331184906.GA25809@merkur.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120331184906.GA25809@merkur.ravnborg.org> 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 * Sam Ravnborg 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