Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAT1QNMrHL_JikeEk1ejen-03u_vwkdQmHhHxrxHLtaa0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1518806331-7101-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
 <1518806331-7101-12-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
 <CA+55aFwQLrrBeXZXK_qUXiGVFNv3qPJS4tNKFacuk0Y0WgZjCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180219044845.7cnqpgyiinn6hkyb@huvuddator> <CA+55aFwiRzpSRW8xhoMs9cbFFXZGmEyyVa4a7aeZzQGYuO211w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFzu8+yaAGvdZMRYJWWZmv_OnFnocnvUiSKcAyNQ1z9kmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK7LNAT1QNMrHL_JikeEk1ejen-03u_vwkdQmHhHxrxHLtaa0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 21 Feb 2018 09:01:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyNM+qrF=f2gX4ktp5U+WOycktkrYfGos7VdTdOuhtvvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/23] kconfig: add 'shell-stdout' function
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc:     Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:59 PM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, I prefer to use different names for different purpose.
> So, 'stdout' and 'success' look good to me.
>
> BTW, I noticed just one built-in function is enough
> because 'success' can be derived from 'stdout'.
>
> So, my plan is, implement $(shell ...) as a built-in function.
> This returns the stdout from the command.
>
> Then, implement 'success' as a textual shorthand
> by using macro, like this:
>
> macro success $(shell ($(1) && echo y) || echo n)

I like it. This is nice and clean, and seems to be very generic. I see
no issues with this approach.

                Linus