Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1234931
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command |
| Date | 2015-09-29 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qdZRv-2U9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qcDq1-5In-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qdwcN-rx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qdx8R-1Mj-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 03:16 +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > ----- On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Wang Long long.wanglong@huawei.com wrote: > > > Some test's Makefile using "$(RM)" while the other's > > using "rm -f". It is better to use one of them in all > > tests. > > I agree that this disparity appears to be unwanted. We > should settle on one or the other. > > > "rm -f" is better, because it is less magic, and everyone > > konws what is does. > > "$(RM)" is clearly defined as a Makefile implicit variable > which defaults to "rm -f". > Ref. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html Sure, but you had to look it up didn't you :) - I did. > Leaving it as a variable is more flexible because then the > default behavior can be overridden if need be, which is > not the case of a hardcoded "rm -f". But I don't think anyone actually wants to do that. Do they? Anyway I don't really care either way, so I'm happy for you to do a patch that uses $(RM). Or maybe Wang Long will be happy to respin his patch to use $(RM). cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com> - 2015-09-23 11:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-09-24 03:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-09-24 04:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2015-09-25 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file "long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@huawei.com> - 2015-09-28 04:10 +0200
[PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com> - 2015-09-28 04:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2015-09-28 05:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Cam Hutchison <camh@xdna.net> - 2015-09-28 07:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2015-09-29 12:00 +0200
[PATCH] kselftest: replace rm -f command with $(RM) Wang Long <long.wanglong@huawei.com> - 2015-09-29 13:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2015-09-29 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2015-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2015-10-03 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2015-10-03 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2015-10-03 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command Yuan Sun <sunyuan3@huawei.com> - 2015-09-28 09:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kselftest: using built-in rule when delete file "long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@huawei.com> - 2015-09-24 04:10 +0200
csiph-web