Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 05:31:01PM +0100, "H.Merijn Brand" <h.m.brand@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> --- Makefile.org 2008-11-10 17:29:53.000000000 +0100 >> +++ Makefile 2008-11-10 17:29:39.000000000 +0100 >> @@ -1329,6 +1329,10 @@ check-sha1:: test-sha1$X >> ./test-sha1.sh >> >> check: common-cmds.h >> + @`sparse </dev/null 2>/dev/null` || (\ >> + echo "The 'sparse' command is not available, so I cannot make the 'check' target" ;\ >> + echo "Did you mean 'make test' instead?" ;\ >> + exit 1 ) >> for i in *.c; do sparse $(ALL_CFLAGS) $(SPARSE_FLAGS) $$i || exit; done > > Please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches, your patch lacks a signoff > and a commit message. Heh, for something small and obvious like this, that's asking a tad too much, although a properly formatted message does reduce my workload and is appreciated. I said "obvious" not in the sense that it is "obviously good". It is obvious what issue the patch wants to address. Having said that, it is far from clear if special casing "make check" like this is a good thing, though. The crufts resulting from "Four extra lines won't hurt" kind of reasoning can accumulate and snowball. Is reading the Makefile when your build fails in order to see if the target was what you really wanted to invoke (ideally, it should rater be "_before_ running make, reading the Makefile to find out what you want to run") a lost art these days? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
