From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932750AbcKHJQR (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:16:17 -0500 Received: from lb2-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.26]:45324 "EHLO lb2-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932489AbcKHJQM (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2016 04:16:12 -0500 Message-ID: <1478596565.29112.40.camel@tiscali.nl> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] s390: delete unneeded #include from facilities_src.h From: Paul Bolle To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Martin Schwidefsky , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Christian Borntraeger , Heiko Carstens , Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 10:16:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <1478403928-20799-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <1478523175.29112.7.camel@tiscali.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mashiro, On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 10:50 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 2016-11-07 21:52 GMT+09:00 Paul Bolle : > > So it seems the odd $(LINUXINCLUDE) variable in that Makefile could be > > replaced with something like: > > -include $(srctree)/include/generated/autoconf.h > > This would break O= build because autoconf.h is a generated file. > > Rather, it should be > -include $(objtree)/include/generated/autoconf.h Three cheers for weasel words like "something like"! > I thought of this at first, but I was not quite sure > if the file path include/generated/autoconf.h is a guaranteed interface. > > Basically, now we are supposed to include autoconf.h via kconfig.h. Yes, that seems to go back to commit 2a11c8ea20bf ("kconfig: Introduce IS_ENABLED(), IS_BUILTIN() and IS_MODULE()"). And when the current approach to the IS_*() macros was introduced - with that breathtaking hack that introduced __is_defined() - this was no longer needed but was not changed again. > So, I thought $(LINUXINCLUDE) is a more stable interface > than specifying the exact path to autoconf.h > > I doubt that nobody would try to change it, but it is just two my cents. A bit of cruft accumulated around LINUXINCLUDE: a few dubious uses of it (and I think this is one of those); typos (ie, LINUX_INCLUDE); the pointless USERINCLUDE; things like that. It would be nice to remove that cruft. But it needs to be done carefully. > Anyway, arch/x86/boot/Makefile already > referenced the path to autoconf.h > > So, if you want to change it, I will not oppose to it. Paul Bolle