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
