Hi Paul,
thanks for your answer.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 15:15 +0100, Valentin Rothberg wrote:
>> @@ -46,8 +46,9 @@ def main():
>> stdout = stdout[:-1]
>>
>> for gitfile in stdout.rsplit("\n"):
>> - if ".git" in gitfile or "ChangeLog" in gitfile or \
>> - ".log" in gitfile or os.path.isdir(gitfile):
>> + if ".git" in gitfile or "ChangeLog" in gitfile or \
>> + ".log" in gitfile or os.path.isdir(gitfile) or \
>> + gitfile.startswith("tools/"):
>
> Perhaps just
> gitfile == "tools/perf/config/Makefile"
>
> (but I'm unsure if that's valid python)?
>
>> continue
>> if REGEX_FILE_KCONFIG.match(gitfile):
>> kconfig_files.append(gitfile)
>
> This patch was triggered by perf changes that hit next-20150225, wasn't
> it? If so, we might want to find out why the perf people need to use
Yes, it was in next-20150225. However, more recent changes have the
same problem. I fear it get's worse for us : )
> their
> "$(call detected,CONFIG_EXAMPLE)"
>
> hack. Especially because that hack is also used on existing Kconfig
> symbols (I spotted X86, X86_64, AUDIT, and NUMA). And the usage of both
> valid Kconfig macros and faux Kconfig macros in that hack looks odd to
> me.
AFAIU it's independent from Kconfig / Kbuild. The usage of Kconfig
symbols seems completely random to me.
Ignoring tools entirely also seems a little too much, since some tools
are still Kconfig sensitive. Hence, I vote to ignore only perf:
+ gitfile.startswith("tools/perf"):
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
