[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220523220120.GG25949@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 00:01:20 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] nolibc changes for v5.19
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 02:13:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
(...)
> Does it work? No.
>
> > work the same on all commands but actually:
> >
> > make -C tools/ nolibc_headers
>
> Put another way: where did you find that "nolibc_headers"?
>
> THAT is what I'm talking about. You are mentioning all these magical
> things that don't match the documentation you yourself added.
OK thanks so now at least I have all the elements I was looking for,
I'm on it and will shortly provide fixes (in short, the main makefile's
variables not being set when doing make -C tools/ requires that some of
them are set as well under the target makefile).
For the second one I totally agree and as I said I think the problem
is wider, so I'll likely add a suggestion in tools/Makefile to also
try "make -C tools/ foo_help", which will allow different sub-projects
to provide a help target that enumerates their respective commands.
We'll start with nolibc and others could then follow, because clearly
for several other ones it's not obvious either and I think the lack
of standard way to display a tool's help doesn't help here.
thanks,
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists