linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file

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]

Message-ID: <5608A007.3060409@huawei.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:03:51 +0800
From:	"long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@...wei.com>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
CC:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	<sam.bobroff@....ibm.com>, <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	<paulus@...ba.or>, <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	<gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <anton@...ba.org>,
	<dvhart@...ux.intel.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<john.stultz@...aro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<wanglong@...qinren.net>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<peifeiyue@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file

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

--
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/