Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] tools/build: Fix -s detection code in tools/build/Makefile.build

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 01:16:28PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:43 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 06:36:10PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 11:37 PM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 08:57:33PM -0700, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > > Hi Jiri,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 2:23 PM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As Dmitry described in [1] changelog the current way of detecting
> > > > > > -s option is broken for new make.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure what -s option does for perf (at least).
> > > > > It doesn't seem much different whether I give it or not.
> > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > >
> > > > what's your make version? the wrong output is visible when running
> > > > with make version > 4.4 .. basicaly the -s is wrongly detected and
> > > > you either get no output at all from some builds or overly verbose
> > > > output
> > > >
> > > > it's mentioned in the [1] commit changelog, I can put it to the
> > > > changelog in new version
> > >
> > > IIUC it's about detecting `make -s` properly and not being confused
> > > by `make a=s` or something.  I'm not objecting on it but I don't see
> > > what `make -s` does actually.
> >
> > so the tools/build/Makefile.build and tools/scripts/Makefile.include detect
> > make -s option, which puts make into silent mode, so both makefiles switch
> > off the output by setting quiet=silent_ or silent=1
> >
> > the problem is that the detection of make -s option changed in make > 4.4
> > and current code could be tricked to switch to silent mode just by having
> > 's' persent on the command line, like with 'a=s'
> 
> I think our talk is circulating :-).  Anyway I'm ok with the change, so

:) ok, thanks

> 
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Which tree do you want to route it?

I think perf tree is the best one to route it

thanks,
jirka




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux