Re: [kbuild-all] make[2]: *** No rule to make target 'tools/testing/nvdimm//config_check.o', needed by 'tools/testing/nvdimm//dax.o'.

[Yilong Ren]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:58:43AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0800, Yilong Ren wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:41:02AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >>On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 06:30:48PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 05:58:36PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:03 AM, kbuild test robot
> >>>>><fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>tree:
> >>>>>>https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >>>>>>head:   694d0d0bb2030d2e36df73e2d23d5770511dbc8d
> >>>>>>commit: ab68f26221366f92611650e8470e6a926801c7d4 /dev/dax, pmem: direct
> >>>>>>access to persistent memory
> >>>>>>date:   3 months ago
> >>>>>>config: i386-randconfig-i1-201633 (attached as .config)
> >>>>>>compiler: gcc-4.8 (Debian 4.8.4-1) 4.8.4
> >>>>>>reproduce:
> >>>>>>        git checkout ab68f26221366f92611650e8470e6a926801c7d4
> >>>>>>        # save the attached .config to linux build tree
> >>>>>>        make ARCH=i386
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>make[2]: *** No rule to make target
> >>>>>>>>'tools/testing/nvdimm//config_check.o', needed by
> >>>>>>>>'tools/testing/nvdimm//dax.o'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   make[2]: Target '__build' not remade because of errors.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think this is an invalid build test.  tools/testing/nvdimm/ uses a
> >>>>>external module Kbuild environment, not Kconfig.  So, there's nothing
> >>>>>I can do to prevent this compile error, unless there's some other way
> >>>>>0-day could determine the configuration dependencies?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Yeah if you can offer a concrete rule for the dependency, we'll add
> >>>>it to 0-day.
> >>>
> >>>Sounds good.  The config_check.c file itself lists the dependencies:
> >>>
> >>>void check(void)
> >>>{
> >>>       /*
> >>>        * These kconfig symbols must be set to "m" for nfit_test to
> >>
> >>If "y" is not a valid option, we'll need to adjust 0-day's dependency
> >>specification for ndctl test:
> >>
> >>wfg /c/lkp-tests% cat include/ndctl
> >>need_kconfig:
> >>- CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS=y
> >>- CONFIG_CMA=y
> >>- CONFIG_DMA_CMA=y
> >>- CONFIG_CMA_SIZE_MBYTES=200
> >>- CONFIG_LIBNVDIMM
> >>- CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM
> >>- CONFIG_ND_BLK
> >>- CONFIG_BTT=y
> >>- CONFIG_NVDIMM_PFN=y
> >>- CONFIG_NVDIMM_DAX=y
> >>- CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE=y
> >>
> >>In the above list, a bare "CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM" means "y" or "m" are
> >>both acceptable.
> >
> >Yes, this is due to enable_module() can accept "y" and "m".
> >How about forcing enable_module() to accept "m" ?
> 
> I think we could change
> 
>        - CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM
> to
>        - CONFIG_BLK_DEV_PMEM=m
> 
> The former will correspond to kernel's
> 
>        #define IS_ENABLED(option) __or(IS_BUILTIN(option), IS_MODULE(option))
> 
> while the latter correspond to
> 
>        #define IS_MODULE(option) config_enabled(option##_MODULE)
> 
> And add logic to handle the =m case. Currently we only have
> enable_module() which corresponds to kernel's IS_ENABLED().

how about adding a function "exact_enable_module()" to assure use "m" ?

diff --git a/lib/kconfig.sh b/lib/kconfig.sh
index 595dbfd..1502ce9 100644
--- a/lib/kconfig.sh
+++ b/lib/kconfig.sh
@@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ enable_testcase_config()
        do
                [[ $CONFIG =~ ^CONFIG_[A-Z0-9_]+=y$ ]] && enable_config ${CONFIG%=y}
+               [[ $CONFIG =~ ^CONFIG_[A-Z0-9_]+=m$ ]] && exact_enable_module ${CONFIG%=y}
                [[ $CONFIG =~ ^CONFIG_[A-Z0-9_]+[A-Z0-9]$ ]] && enable_module $CONFIG
                [[ $CONFIG =~ ^(CONFIG_[A-Z0-9_]+)=([0-9]+)$ ]] && set_config_to_value ${BASH_REMATCH[1]} ${BASH_REMATCH[2]}
        done
 }

-- 
Thanks
Ren Yilong

> 
> >23 # CONFIG_XXX=m => unchange
> >24 # CONFIG_XXX=y => unchange
> >25 # CONFIG_XXX is not set => CONFIG_XXX=m
> >26 enable_module()
> 
> The behavior here is good for its current callers, except the "module"
> in the function name might be a bit misleading.
> 
> Thanks,
> Fengguang