On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 18:35 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 03/10/2015 05:49 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 17:39 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On 03/10/2015 05:36 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:49 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>>> On 03/09/2015 08:28 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>>>> On 03/04/2015 03:19 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > >>>>>> The makefiles under tools/testing/selftests are not real kbuild > >>>>>> makefiles, they are regular stand alone makefiles. As such they *do* > >>>>>> want all the standard implicit rules and variables defined. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So before calling those makefiles, filter -rR out of MAKEFLAGS. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Without this not all the selftests are built correctly when called via > >>>>>> the top-level Makefile. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Michal, > >>>>> > >>>>> Could you please take this patch in your tree. > >>>>> > >>>>> Acked-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am changing this to a Nack. This is not fully cooked. > >>>> I am seeing new failures on some tests. > >>>> > >>>> gcc: error: elf_x86_64: No such file or directory > >>>> gcc: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-m’ > >>> > >>> I can't reproduce that here. In what way do you think it's related to this > >>> patch? > >> > >> I have just your patch on tops of linux 4.0-rc3 and ran > >> make kselftest and that's what I see. > >> > >> If you can fix this problem I can take your patch, otherwise, > >> I have to go with individual Makefiles fixes. > > > > OK I see it now, only happens on x86. > > > > It looks like it's coming in via kbuild. Though I can only see it being set in > > arch/x86/Makefile.um, and I don't know why that is being sourced. But it must > > be. > > > > So this is another symptom of running via the top-level Makefile rather than > > directly. > > > > I'll try and find a fix. > > If you can fix it that is great. I don't see any need to change > existing Makefiles to delete explicit rules based on this change > though. I do. The explicit rules are generally wrong in some way, ie. they use flags inconsistently, or they don't use CROSS_COMPILE when they should. There should be no need to have explicit rules for simple tests that just build a binary from a .c file. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
