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. 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? We should be able to show the help message from the main Makefile with a hint to the Makefile.nolibc. 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/.
