[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20db87b0-05ff-476b-a58f-d0945bfacf20@t-8ch.de>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:34:38 +0200
From: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] selftests/nolibc: rename Makefile
On 2025-06-21 06:14:21+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:39:32PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > The nolibc tests are not real kselftests, they work differently and
> > provide a different interface. Users trying to use them like real
> > selftests may be confused and the tests are not executed by CI systems.
> >
> > To make space for an integration with the kselftest framework, move the
> > custom tests out of the way.
> > The custom tests are still useful to keep as they provide functionality
> > not provided by kselftests.
>
> I'm wondering, what prevents us from merging the new rules into the
> current makefile instead of renaming it, especially considering the
> fact that we initially took care of not confiscating the "all" target ?
We'll have conflicts around CFLAGS, the nolibc-test target and probably
other things. It will also make everything harder to understand and may
break unexpectedly in the future.
> I'm asking because:
>
> $ make -f Makefile.nolibc help
>
> is clearly less convenient and intuitive than:
>
> $ make help
Is your issue specifically with the help target?
We should be able to show the help message from the main Makefile with a
hint to the Makefile.nolibc.
Another, more general, possibility would be to move the special Makefile
to tools/testing/nolibc/ and keep only the selftest parts in
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists