On 2025-06-21 10:47:39+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 10:34:38AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > On 2025-06-21 06:14:21+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:39:32PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > > The nolibc tests are not real kselftests, they work differently and > > > > provide a different interface. Users trying to use them like real > > > > selftests may be confused and the tests are not executed by CI systems. > > > > > > > > To make space for an integration with the kselftest framework, move the > > > > custom tests out of the way. > > > > The custom tests are still useful to keep as they provide functionality > > > > not provided by kselftests. > > > > > > I'm wondering, what prevents us from merging the new rules into the > > > current makefile instead of renaming it, especially considering the > > > fact that we initially took care of not confiscating the "all" target ? > > > > We'll have conflicts around CFLAGS, the nolibc-test target and probably > > other things. > > OK I understand. > > > It will also make everything harder to understand and may > > break unexpectedly in the future. > > > > > I'm asking because: > > > > > > $ make -f Makefile.nolibc help > > > > > > is clearly less convenient and intuitive than: > > > > > > $ make help > > > > Is your issue specifically with the help target? > > Not just but that's an entry point. Admittedly it's not a big problem, > I was merely asking if there was a real reason for splitting them apart > or if it was just to keep the stuff clean. > > > We should be able to show the help message from the main Makefile with a > > hint to the Makefile.nolibc. > > I thought about it as well, we could have a help target in the main > makefile that just emits "Please run make -f Makefile.nolibc with the > following targets:", and then runs "make -f Makefile.nolibc help".
I'll do that. > > Another, more general, possibility would be to move the special Makefile > > to tools/testing/nolibc/ and keep only the selftest parts in > > tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/. > > I hadn't thought about this, but that could indeed make sense. Let's see > later how it goes and let's not add burden about this for now. Please just > keep your patch as-is. Sounds good. Could you give a formal Ack for the patch/series? Thomas
