Paolo Bonzini writes: > Il 04/06/2012 00:57, Anthony Liguori ha scritto: >>> >>> As before, I dislike the use of the filename "Makefile" for files that >>> are not self-contained. If make is called from that deep directory, it >>> leads to undefined results. Either we must make sure through some clever >>> ifeq'ery and a local "all" target that such an attempt fails, or better >>> use a filename that is recognized by editors as Makefile syntax but not >>> used by make without explicit -f, e.g., foo.mak. >> >> Linux does this. I think it's expected behavior at this point. In the >> long term, we should either move to kconfig or autoconf so trying to act >> like one of the two seems like a good idea to me.
> This is not really necessary; we won't really move to kbuild anytime. I > don't really like the magic Makefiles and did it only because Linux does > this. > Naming files Makefile.objs would make just as much sense. Naming them as *.mak makes some common editors interpret the file as a makefile (e.g., vim and emacs), while *.objs brings no meaning to these two. Lluis -- "And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn something new, the whole world becomes that much richer." -- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom Tollbooth