Re: [PATCH] Makefile: rust-analyzer target: better error handling and comments

[John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>]

On 6/20/24 1:45 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:31:53AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 8:13 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What exactly did you have in mind for how that should look? The
>>> "make rustavailable" target has some leading *** and some bare
>>> statements, so I'm not quite sure exactly how to lay it out:
>>
>> I was thinking something like:
>>
>>      ***
>>      *** Rust is not available.
>>      ***
>>
>> (the `***` prefix is used also in other similar scripts and by Make itself).
>>
>> However, thinking about it a bit more, we should perhaps just let
>> `rust_is_available.sh` tell the user why it fails, since it is likely
>> the next step the user would do anyway:
>>
>>      $ make LLVM=1 rust-analyzer
>>      ***
>>      *** Rust compiler 'rustc' is too old.
>>      ***   Your version:    1.62.0
>>      ***   Minimum version: 1.78.0
>>      ***
>>      ***
>>      *** Please see Documentation/rust/quick-start.rst for details
>>      *** on how to set up the Rust support.
>>      ***
>>      make[1]: *** [linux/Makefile:1973: rust-analyzer] Error 1
>>      make: *** [Makefile:240: __sub-make] Error 2
>>
>> What do you think? Then there is no need for extra output here and the
>> patch becomes simpler too.

Yes, that's perfect, actually.

> As someone who just ran into the "wait, how do I get rust to build on
> this machine again?" problem, yes, having the link to the documentation
> right there would be helpful.  I did know where to find it, but others
> might not, and it's free to add.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Right, we get this for free by just letting scripts/rust_is_available.sh
report its results "out loud".

I'll post a v2, and with the comment part split into a separate patch as
requested.


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA