Re: [PATCH v2 05/14] selftests/nolibc: add menuconfig for development

[Zhangjin Wu]

> On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 09:22:37PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > The default DEFCONFIG_<ARCH> may not always work for all architectures,
> > let's allow users to tune some kernel config options with 'menuconfig'.
> > 
> > This is important when porting nolibc to a new architecture, it also
> > allows to speed up nolibc 'run' target testing via manually disabling
> > tons of unnecessary kernel config options.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> > index 058e7be070ea..06954b4b3885 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/Makefile
> > @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ KERNEL_IMAGE  = $(objtree)/$(IMAGE)
> >  defconfig:
> >  	$(Q)$(MAKE_KERNEL) mrproper $(DEFCONFIG) prepare
> >  
> > +menuconfig:
> > +	$(Q)$(MAKE_KERNEL) menuconfig
> 
> What is the real benefit of this compared to just running the
> standard "make menuconfig" ? We should avoid adding makefile targets
> that do not bring value on top of that the top-level makefile does,
> because it will make the useful ones much harder to spot, and will
> tend to encourage users to use only that makefile during the tests,
> which is a bad practice since many targets will always be missing
> or work differently. It's important in my opinion that we strictly
> stick to what is useful to operate the tests themselves and this
> one doesn't make me feel like it qualifies as such.

Ok, get it.

I did like develop nolibc in tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/ without
changing directories frequently or specifying the "-C" option
unnecessary ;-) 

Since "make menuconfig" is only required during the first porting of a new
architecture, so, it is ok to drop this patch.

Thanks,
Zhangjin

> 
> Willy