From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755005AbbI1CEW (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:04:22 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:14312 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753329AbbI1CEU (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:04:20 -0400 Message-ID: <5608A007.3060409@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:03:51 +0800 From: "long.wanglong" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Darren Hart CC: Michael Ellerman , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file References: <1443001211-119624-1-git-send-email-long.wanglong@huawei.com> <1443059210.21433.1.camel@ellerman.id.au> <56035A71.9040301@huawei.com> <1443060467.21433.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> <20150925154415.GC38748@vmdeb7> In-Reply-To: <20150925154415.GC38748@vmdeb7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.111.152.157] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2015/9/25 23:44, Darren Hart wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:07:47PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:05 +0800, long.wanglong wrote: >>> On 2015/9/24 9:46, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 09:40 +0000, Wang Long wrote: >>>>> Use make's built-in rules to when delete a file >>>>> or delete files. >>>> >>>> It's not a built-in rule, it's a variable. >>> >>> Sorry,I did not describe clearly. It is a variable used as >>> name of program in built-in rules. >>> >>>> Personally I think using rm directly is clearer, but I guess this is fine. Do >>>> you actually want to override $RM ? >>> >>> So far, I do not want to override $(RM). But I found that some test's Makefile >>> using *$(RM)* while the other's using *rm -f*, I think it is better to use one >>> of them in all unit tests. > > Agreed, consistency is good. > >>> >>> Do you think which one is better? >> >> I prefer just using rm -f, because it's less magic, everyone knows what it does. >> > > Also agreed, it's explicit and perfectly functional. > Ok, thanks, I will send another patch to replace $(RM) with "rm -f". Best Regards Wang Long