On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 08:44:11PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 4:56 AM Kent Overstreet > > It's consistent with how we can specify options in makefiles for a > > particular file. > > > It is consistent in a bad way. That's a new meaning for consistent that I'm unfamiliar with. > You used "GCOV_PROFILE_" prefix > for the full directory path, while it is already > used as a file name which is relative to the > current directory. And the current directory when you're building the entire kernel is the top level directory. > > I suppose CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_DIRS would be fine, but your patch isn't > > complete so I can't test it. > > > I do not understand what you mean by "isn't complete". > > It is just a matter of adding the config entry somewhere. Yes, not complete, meaning you haven't even tested it.
