On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:09:03AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > 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? I don't really see the point, omitting $(LLVM) altogether is simpler. Why specify LLVM=0 if you want GNU tools, since it is the default? However, I can look into changing that in a new revision or a follow up if others disagree? > > 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* Ack, I'll wait for other feedback before sending v3, unless there is none and Masahiro does not mind fixing it up during application. Thanks for the review! Nathan
