Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] tools: Add a toplevel Makefile

[Ingo Molnar]

* Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 
> > One question. Instead of:
> > 
> >   make tools/perf_install
> > 
> > Couldnt we beat kbuild into submission to allow the much more 
> > obvious:
> > 
> >   make tools/perf install
> > 
> > ?
> It is more obvious if you look at it alone.
> But when you look at it with the other commands then you suddenly
> end up confused when you need to specify the command as a
> separate target "tools/perf install - and when it is just
> one target "tools/perf_install".
> 
> > 
> > I don't think anyone would expect the *kernel* to be installed 
> > in such a circumstance - so it's only a question of making the 
> > Makefile understand it, right?
> Make will try to update the two targets "tools/perf" and "install"
> in parallel. And it does not look easy to teach make that when you
> specify the target "tools/*" then the install target should just
> be ignored and passed down to the sub-make.
> 
> Anything that adds more complexity to the top-level Makefile should
> be avoided if at all possible. It is un-maintainable as-is.
> And the consistency issue is also important.
> 
> I know that if I do "make install" the kernel will be installed.
> So one could argue that the same should apply to
> the targets below tools/.
> But then this should be for all targets and not just install.
> If someone come up with a clean way to do so it is fine.
> but the original proposal with "tinstall" just do not cut it.

'tinstall' is definitely out, no argument about that.

Viable options are:

  tools/perf install
  tools/perf_install
  tools/perf-install

I'm fine with either one.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/