On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:54:10AM +0200, Peter Oberparleiter wrote: > Leaving the method of how this input data is processed inside kbuild > aside for a moment, I'm wondering if specifying the list of directories > via a CONFIG symbol instead of make parameters would work equally well. > > Initially I thought this would be too complex to process using Makefile > functions alone, but with the logic shown above this could be relatively > simple to achieve. Also having given this some more thought, a CONFIG > symbol indeed seems like a better fit considering aspects such as > reproducibility of builds and config symbol documentation. > > The CONFIG symbols could look something like: > > - CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_INCLUDE: list of directories to include in > profiling > - CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_EXCLUDE: list of directories to exclude from > profiling > > where the precedence would be: exclude list > include list > > GCOV_PROFILE_* specified in Makefiles > CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL > > Sub-directory handling could work similar to how you described it for > the make parameter, i.e. an include/exclude statement for a parent > directory would also apply to sub-directories. > > What this approach work for your use case? Note that I'm not asking you > to implement this - I just want to get a better picture of how a generic > solution could look like. Yeah, that would work fine. I'm assuming the config option list would just be a comma separated string? btw, here's the results - fully automated code coverage analysis integrated into the CI: https://evilpiepirate.org/~testdashboard/ci?branch=bcachefs&commit=eac40840098bfbb5fa1711f6bbce71b27bbccb89 https://evilpiepirate.org/~testdashboard/c/eac40840098bfbb5fa1711f6bbce71b27bbccb89/lcov/ And the result of the makefile work is that adding a gcov variant of an existing test is as easy as: https://evilpiepirate.org/git/ktest.git/tree/tests/bcachefs/gcov-xfstests.ktest
