Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: Make $(LLVM) more flexible

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:08:14AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> [...]
> 
> Update and reorder the documentation to reflect these new additions.
> At the same time, notate that LLVM=0 is not the same as just omitting it
> altogether, which has confused people in the past.

Is it worth making LLVM=0 actually act the way it's expected to?

> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200317215515.226917-1-ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220224151322.072632223@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Suggested-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>

Looks good; minor .rst nit below...

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> [...]
> -LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. Kbuild supports ``LLVM=1``
> -to enable them. ::
> -
> -	make LLVM=1
> -
> -They can be enabled individually. The full list of the parameters: ::
> +LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. They can be enabled individually.
> +The full list of supported make variables: ::

": ::" and "::" yield the same result. I think the latter is more
readable in non-rendered form. *shrug*

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook