> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 09:22:37PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > The default DEFCONFIG_<ARCH> may not always work for all architectures, > > let's allow users to tune some kernel config options with 'menuconfig'. > > > > This is important when porting nolibc to a new architecture, it also > > allows to speed up nolibc 'run' target testing via manually disabling > > tons of unnecessary kernel config options. > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > index 058e7be070ea..06954b4b3885 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile > > @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ KERNEL_IMAGE = $(objtree)/$(IMAGE) > > defconfig: > > $(Q)$(MAKE_KERNEL) mrproper $(DEFCONFIG) prepare > > > > +menuconfig: > > + $(Q)$(MAKE_KERNEL) menuconfig > > What is the real benefit of this compared to just running the > standard "make menuconfig" ? We should avoid adding makefile targets > that do not bring value on top of that the top-level makefile does, > because it will make the useful ones much harder to spot, and will > tend to encourage users to use only that makefile during the tests, > which is a bad practice since many targets will always be missing > or work differently. It's important in my opinion that we strictly > stick to what is useful to operate the tests themselves and this > one doesn't make me feel like it qualifies as such. Ok, get it. I did like develop nolibc in tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/ without changing directories frequently or specifying the "-C" option unnecessary ;-) Since "make menuconfig" is only required during the first porting of a new architecture, so, it is ok to drop this patch. Thanks, Zhangjin > > Willy
