From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965491AbWIRGpk (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:45:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965487AbWIRGpk (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:45:40 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:16258 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965486AbWIRGpj (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:45:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch 1/8] extend make headers_check to detect more problems From: David Woodhouse To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060918062152.GA7088@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <20060918012740.407846000@klappe.arndb.de> <20060918013216.335200000@klappe.arndb.de> <20060918062152.GA7088@uranus.ravnborg.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:45:36 +0100 Message-Id: <1158561937.24527.277.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 (2.6.3-1.fc5.5.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 08:21 +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > Can't we do this with a hdrchk$$$ filename to avoid using > random entropy for each compile? I'd like to move to a scheme where we do headers_install and headers_check _without_ starting with a rm -rf $(HDR_INSTALL_PATH)/include. We could probably do it by adding a rule along the lines of $(filter-out $(unifdef-y) $(header-y),$(wildcard $(INSTALL_HDR_PATH)/$(dst)/*.h): rm $@ ... i.e. remove every .h file from the destination directory except the ones we just created. Then we can make $(INSTALL_HDR_PATH)/$(dst)/%.h depend on $(srctree)/$(src)/%.h so that it doesn't get re-exported unless it's changed. And we can keep a stamp file around (or the output of the test compilation after Arnd's patch) which shows that the _check_ step has been done too. Something like .checked.%.h After we do that, a second invocation of 'make headers_check' should have nothing to do, which will encourage people to keep using it. -- dwmw2