On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfali...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:17:52AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> Can we *please* make "shell-stdout" go away, and make this just be "shell"? >> >> The rule would be very simple: >> >> - if the result of the shell command is a failure, the result is 'n' >> >> - otherwise, the result is the first line of stdout >> >> - if the result is empty, we replace it with 'y'. > > Could there be cases where you'd legitimately want to put empty output > from a command in a string (that would be common enough to matter)? > That'd get messier with the above rule, as it never generates an empty > string as output.
Hmm. Maybe. Something like "LOCALVERSION_AUTO" might want that where you add a version string if something is true, and maybe you'd use a shell script for it and generate it at Kconfig time. I'm not seeing anything like that right now, but I could imagine it in theory, so your worry is valid. > Would you still be as opposed (or more opposed...) to having two > functions if they were called something like 'success' and 'stdout' > instead? Maybe the naming is indeed what annoyed me the most. I do like your "success"/"stdout" more than "shell"/"shell-stdout", because with that naming I don't get the feeling that one should subsume the other. Linus