Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile

Ingo Molnar
2012-04-01T08:43:02Z

* 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