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]

Message-ID: <1486799898.16862.1443881517178.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:11:57 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	dvhart <dvhart@...radead.org>
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 <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 <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 <wanglong@...qinren.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command

----- On Oct 3, 2015, at 12:38 AM, dvhart dvhart@...radead.org wrote:

> 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. :-)

An example is "grm" when you install the opencsw repository
packages on Solaris. In the unlikely example where someone
would have a Solaris machine to build Linux, overriding
various command names, including "rm", can be useful. This
is just one example, there are probably others.

Thanks,

Mathieu

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

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/