On 03.03.2022 17:50, Anthony PERARD wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 05:01:07PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 03.03.2022 16:41, Anthony PERARD wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 11:37:08AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 25.01.2022 12:00, Anthony PERARD wrote: >>>>> +# Part of the command line transforms $(obj) in to a relative reverted >>>>> path. >>>>> +# e.g.: It transforms "dir/foo/bar" into successively >>>>> +# "dir foo bar", ".. .. ..", "../../.." >>>>> +$(obj)/%.c: $(srctree)/common/efi/%.c FORCE >>>>> + $(Q)ln -nfs $(subst $(space),/,$(patsubst %,..,$(subst /, >>>>> ,$(obj))))/common/efi/$(<F) $@ >>>> >>>> What is the "reverted" about in the comment? Also (nit) I think you want >>>> s/in to/into/. >>> >>> I've tried to described in the single word that the result is a relative >>> path that goes in the opposite direction to the original relative path. >>> Instead of going down, it goes up the hierarchy of directories. >>> Maybe "reversed" would be better? Do you have other suggestion? >> >> I'd simply omit the word. In case you're fine with that, I'd be happy >> to adjust while committing. > > I think that would sound kind of strange. $(obj) is already a relative > path. It would probably be better to just drop the end of the sentence > in that case. With the example showing what is happening, that would > probably be enough. The sentence would then be: > > # Part of the command line transforms $(obj). > # e.g.: It transforms "dir/foo/bar" into successively > # "dir foo bar", ".. .. ..", "../../.."
Fine with me. Then: Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Jan
