From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030282AbWAaIEJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:04:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965056AbWAaIEJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:04:09 -0500 Received: from public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:9661 "EHLO emea1-mh.id2.novell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965055AbWAaIEI (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Jan 2006 03:04:08 -0500 Message-Id: <43DF19EC020000780000F8BE@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:03:55 +0100 From: "Jan Beulich" To: Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate command line escaping Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> -cmd = @$(if $($(quiet)cmd_$(1)),\ >> - echo ' $(call escsq,$($(quiet)cmd_$(1)))' &&) $(cmd_$(1)) >> +cmd = @$(echo-cmd) $(cmd_$(1)) >Here you replace > echo 'xxx' && cmd >with > echo 'xxx'; cmd > >Since we assume echo will always succeed I see no difference in >behaviour, but I recall the '&&' was there for some specific reason. >Just wondering why it is so - I see no problems with it. Since I didn't see a difference in behavior, and it permitted more re-use of existing constructs, I thought it'd be reasonable to be replaced; I didn't know of anything that would require the &&. Jan