On 01.07.2024 15:46, Alessandro Zucchelli wrote: > --- a/xen/build.mk > +++ b/xen/build.mk > @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ quiet_cmd_compile.h = UPD $@ > define cmd_compile.h > if [ ! -r $@ -o -O $@ ]; then \ > cat .banner; \ > + echo '#ifndef INCLUDE_XEN_COMPILE_H' >> $(dot-target).tmp; \
Leaving aside the question on the INCLUDE_ prefix (see earlier comments on another patch in this series), I wonder what good a guard does here in the first place. But anyway, I expect this again gets us into "we need to mechanically and slavishly follow the rules" territory. However, shouldn't this first "echo" use > in place of >>, to prevent surprises when e.g. an earlier build was interrupted at exactly the "right" point? Jan
