Em Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:50:42AM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:10:10 +0100 > Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:40:30PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > Em Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 09:08:52AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 02:38:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > > > wrote: > > > > > Em Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:16:23PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf escreveu: > > > > > > So 'allow-override' would probably be a good option. > > > > > > > > Humm, my preference is to make tools/ look like the kernel, and the > > > > > kernel doesn't use that allow-override thing, right? So perhaps add > > > > > what > > > > > is missing to make it look exactly like the kernel and then ditch this > > > > > allow-override thing? > > > > > > > Steven explained his reason for allow-override in the comment above it, > > > > please make sure the new solution follows that > > > > > > Sure, and I'm no make guru, but what puzzles me is why isn't this > > > required in: > > > > > > [acme@jouet linux]$ grep -w ^CC Makefile > > > CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc > > > [acme@jouet linux]$ > > > > Steve has special requirements I guess ;-) CC-ed > > > > I just copied what I had in trace-cmd. David Sharp is the one that > added that code. > > Link: > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1299791491-1805-1-git-send-email-dhsh...@google.com
David, so, what was the usecase for that? Something we can try to reproduce so that we can check if the kernel solution covers your specific case? - Arnaldo
