linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command

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:	Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:38:08 -0700
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	Wang Long <long.wanglong@...wei.com>, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, keescook@...omium.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, gorcunov@...nvz.org,
	cov@...eaurora.org, bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
	tyler baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...ymobile.com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	andrej skvortzov <andrej.skvortzov@...il.com>,
	sjayaram@...mai.com, treding@...dia.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	naresh kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	alexey kodanev <alexey.kodanev@...cle.com>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wanglong@...qinren.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:16:53AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Wang Long long.wanglong@...wei.com wrote:
> 
> > Some test's Makefile using "$(RM)" while the other's
> > using "rm -f". It is better to use one of them in all
> > tests.
> 
> I agree that this disparity appears to be unwanted. We
> should settle on one or the other.
> 
> > 
> > "rm -f" is better, because it is less magic, and everyone
> > konws what is does.
> 
> "$(RM)" is clearly defined as a Makefile implicit variable
> which defaults to "rm -f".
> Ref. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html
> 
> Leaving it as a variable is more flexible because then the
> default behavior can be overridden if need be, which is
> not the case of a hardcoded "rm -f".
> 
> Following your line of argumentation, we should then
> invoke "gcc" directly in every Makefile because it is
> less magic than "$(CC)". This makes no sense.

I don't think they can be compared so simply. Specifying a compiler is a common
use case. Customizing the rm command is not, in my experience anyway, and like
Michael, I would definately have to look up what RM means.

That said, I care more about consistency than which is used. Both are valid, but
$(RM), while more flexible, will cost more people time to look up what it does
as it isn't commonly used than any benefit we're likely to see from its use.

Meh. :-)

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/