lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:42:53 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile


* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ