On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 03:43:00PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 13:58:21 +0000 > > From: Visa Hankala <[email protected]> > > > > On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 01:23:56PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Miod Vallat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Index: usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > RCS file: src/usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c,v > > > > > retrieving revision 1.11 > > > > > diff -u -p -r1.11 armv7_installboot.c > > > > > --- usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c 20 Jul 2021 14:51:56 > > > > > -0000 1.11 > > > > > +++ usr.sbin/installboot/armv7_installboot.c 2 Feb 2022 14:11:08 > > > > > -0000 > > > > > @@ -55,6 +55,19 @@ > > > > > > > > > > #include "installboot.h" > > > > > > > > > > +#if defined(__aarch64__) > > > > > +#define BOOTEFI_SRC "BOOTAA64.EFI" > > > > > +#define BOOTEFI_DST "bootaa64.efi" > > > > > +#elif defined(__arm__) > > > > > +#define BOOTEFI_SRC "BOOTARM.EFI" > > > > > +#define BOOTEFI_DST "bootarm.efi" > > > > > +#elif defined(__riscv) > > > > > +#define BOOTEFI_SRC "BOOTRISCV64.EFI" > > > > > +#define BOOTEFI_DST "bootriscv64.efi" > > > > > +#else > > > > > +#error "unhandled architecture" > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > > Wouldn't these defines better set at the Makefile level, since there is > > > > already logic to pick different files depending upon the architecture? > > I'd prefer to keep the names in the .c file, especially if the result > is that they're scatter though the Makefile instead of in a single > block.
I agree. Putting definitions in a Makefile also sort of hides them.
