Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] `scripts/rust_is_available.sh` improvements

[Miguel Ojeda]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 2:16 AM Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This is the patch series to improve `scripts/rust_is_available.sh`.
>
> The major addition in v2 is the test suite in the last commit. I added
> it because I wanted to have a proper way to test any further changes to
> it (such as the suggested `set --` idea to avoid forking by Masahiro),
> and so that adding new checks was easier to justify too (i.e. vs. the
> added complexity).
>
> In addition, there are also a few new checks in the script, to cover for
> even some more cases, which hopefully make problematic setups easier to
> identify and solve by users building the kernel. For instance, running
> the script externally gives:
>
>     $ scripts/rust_is_available.sh
>     ***
>     *** Environment variable 'RUSTC' is not set.
>     ***
>     *** This script is intended to be called from Kbuild.
>     *** Please use the 'rustavailable' target to call it instead.
>     *** Otherwise, the results may not be meaningful.
>     ***
>     *** Please see Documentation/rust/quick-start.rst for details
>     *** on how to set up the Rust support.
>     ***
>
> I also changed it to avoid setting `-e` as Masahiro suggested.
> Similarly, I now check for `$RUSTC`, `$BINDGEN` and `$CC`, instead of
> `$MAKEFLAGS`, as he also suggested (but I gave it their own error
> message rather than use the `${CC?: is not set}` approach. This goes in
> line with the reasons outlined above, i.e. trying to give users a clear
> error of what step exactly failed).
>
> In the test suite I included previously problematic compiler version
> strings we got reports for. The test suite covers all current branches
> in the script, and we should keep it that way in the future.
>
> The patch series also include Masahiro's patch to remove the `-v`
> option, as well as Russell's patch for supporting multiple arguments
> in `$CC`.
>
> All in all, this should solve all the issues we got so far (unless I
> have missed something) and improve things further with the new checks
> plus the test suite to hopefully have an easier time in the future.
>
> Testers for this one are appreciated, especially if you have uncommon or
> custom setups for building the kernel.
>
> This could go through either the Kbuild or the Rust tree.

Applied to `rust-next` -- thanks everyone!

Cheers,
Miguel