[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyNM+qrF=f2gX4ktp5U+WOycktkrYfGos7VdTdOuhtvvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:01:59 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@...il.com>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/23] kconfig: add 'shell-stdout' function
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, I prefer to use different names for different purpose.
> So, 'stdout' and 'success' look good to me.
>
> BTW, I noticed just one built-in function is enough
> because 'success' can be derived from 'stdout'.
>
> So, my plan is, implement $(shell ...) as a built-in function.
> This returns the stdout from the command.
>
> Then, implement 'success' as a textual shorthand
> by using macro, like this:
>
> macro success $(shell ($(1) && echo y) || echo n)
I like it. This is nice and clean, and seems to be very generic. I see
no issues with this approach.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists