Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Fri, 4 Mar 2022 10:09:03 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kbuild: Make $(LLVM) more flexible
Message-ID: <202203041005.A3B985C@keescook>
References: <20220304170813.1689186-1-nathan@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220304170813.1689186-1-nathan@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:08:14AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> [...]
> 
> Update and reorder the documentation to reflect these new additions.
> At the same time, notate that LLVM=0 is not the same as just omitting it
> altogether, which has confused people in the past.

Is it worth making LLVM=0 actually act the way it's expected to?

> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200317215515.226917-1-ndesaulniers@google.com/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220224151322.072632223@infradead.org/
> Suggested-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>

Looks good; minor .rst nit below...

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

> [...]
> -LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. Kbuild supports ``LLVM=1``
> -to enable them. ::
> -
> -	make LLVM=1
> -
> -They can be enabled individually. The full list of the parameters: ::
> +LLVM has substitutes for GNU binutils utilities. They can be enabled individually.
> +The full list of supported make variables: ::

": ::" and "::" yield the same result. I think the latter is more
readable in non-rendered form. *shrug*

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook