On 13.10.2021 12:36, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 01:41:16PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 24.08.2021 12:50, Anthony PERARD wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <[email protected]> >> >> Trying to synthesize a description: >> >>> --- a/xen/Makefile >>> +++ b/xen/Makefile >>> @@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ _clean: >>> $(MAKE) $(clean) test >>> $(MAKE) $(kconfig) clean >>> find . \( -name "*.o" -o -name ".*.d" -o -name ".*.d2" \ >> >> This was effectively redundant with ... >> >>> + -o -name ".*.o.tmp" -o -name "*~" -o -name "core" \ >>> -o -name "*.gcno" -o -name ".*.cmd" -o -name "lib.a" \) -exec >>> rm -f {} \; >>> rm -f include/asm $(TARGET) $(TARGET).gz $(TARGET).efi >>> $(TARGET).efi.map $(TARGET)-syms $(TARGET)-syms.map *~ core >>> rm -f asm-offsets.s arch/*/include/asm/asm-offsets.h >>> diff --git a/xen/scripts/Makefile.clean b/xen/scripts/Makefile.clean >>> index 027c200c0efc..b6df9e861e6e 100644 >>> --- a/xen/scripts/Makefile.clean >>> +++ b/xen/scripts/Makefile.clean >>> @@ -14,10 +14,8 @@ include Makefile >>> subdir-all := $(subdir-y) $(subdir-n) $(subdir-) \ >>> $(patsubst %/,%, $(filter %/, $(obj-y) $(obj-n) $(obj-))) >>> >>> -DEPS_RM = $(DEPS) $(DEPS_INCLUDE) >> >> ... this and its use below. >> >>> .PHONY: clean >>> clean:: $(subdir-all) >>> - rm -f *.o .*.o.tmp *~ core $(DEPS_RM) >> >> With the command gone, I think the :: should also be converted (back) to >> just : then. Then > > "clean" has been a double-column rule for a long time. If we convert > this rule to a single-column we need to convert all "clean" target to > use single-column which would make this patch more complicated. So I > don't think we should make this change.
Hmm, indeed make would complain in that case (I didn't mean to suggest to convert all clean-s to single-colon rules, but I was instead under the wrong impression that spelling out merely dependencies would be okay with single-colon rule). But then make's doc also says "Each double-colon rule should specify a recipe; if it does not, an implicit rule will be used if one applies." So perhaps, to avoid depending on the latter, an empty recipe should be added here (by adding a semicolon)? >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> >> Assuming the patch is independent of the earlier still uncommitted ones >> (please confirm), I'd be happy to make the adjustment while committing >> - as long as you agree, of course. > > The patch is independent of earlier one, although the context is changed > in one patch so wouldn't apply cleaning without git helps. > (context is changed in "xen: move include/asm-* to arch/*/include/asm") That would be easy enough to adjust, I guess. But first we need to settle on the above. Jan
