Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command
flat view
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Date: 2015-10-03 18:05:20
Also in:
lkml
----- On Oct 3, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Josh Triplett josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:11:57PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:quoted
----- On Oct 3, 2015, at 12:38 AM, dvhart dvhart@infradead.org wrote:quoted
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:16:53AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:quoted
----- On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Wang Long long.wanglong@huawei.com wrote:quoted
Some test's Makefile using "$(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.quoted
"rm -f" is better, because it is less magic, and everyone konws what is does."$(RM)" is clearly defined as a Makefile implicit variable which defaults to "rm -f". Ref. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html Leaving it as a variable is more flexible because then the default behavior can be overridden if need be, which is not the case of a hardcoded "rm -f". Following your line of argumentation, we should then invoke "gcc" directly in every Makefile because it is less magic than "$(CC)". This makes no sense.I don't think they can be compared so simply. Specifying a compiler is a common use case. Customizing the rm command is not, in my experience anyway, and like Michael, I would definately have to look up what RM means. That said, I care more about consistency than which is used. Both are valid, but $(RM), while more flexible, will cost more people time to look up what it does as it isn't commonly used than any benefit we're likely to see from its use. Meh. :-)An example is "grm" when you install the opencsw repository packages on Solaris. In the unlikely example where someone would have a Solaris machine to build Linux, overriding various command names, including "rm", can be useful. This is just one example, there are probably others.Does Solaris rm not support -f?
Yes, it does. I was merely showing this as an example where it can be useful to override the command name, although I don't expect anyone to have to use "grm" rather than "rm" on that specific platform. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com