On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:48:26AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.10.2021 18:29, Anthony PERARD wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 10:51:44AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 24.08.2021 12:50, Anthony PERARD wrote: > >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/efi/Makefile > >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/efi/Makefile > >>> @@ -1,4 +1,10 @@ > >>> CFLAGS-y += -fshort-wchar > >>> +CFLAGS-y += -I$(srctree)/common/efi > >> > >> Perhaps another opportunity for -iquote? > > > > Yes. > > > >>> obj-y += boot.init.o pe.init.o ebmalloc.o runtime.o > >>> obj-$(CONFIG_ACPI) += efi-dom0.init.o > >>> + > >>> +$(obj)/%.c: common/efi/%.c > >>> + $(Q)cp -f $< $@ > >> > >> In case both trees are on the same file system, trying to hardlink first > >> would seem desirable. When copying, I think you should also pass -p. > > > > I don't know if doing an hardlink is a good thing to do, I'm not sure of > > the kind of issue this could bring. As for -p, I don't think it's a good > > idea to copy the mode, ownership, and timestamps of the source file, I'd > > rather have the timestamps that Make expect, e.i. "now". > > Why would "now" be correct (or expected) in any way? The cloned file is no > different from the original. Nevertheless I agree that -p is not ideal; > it's just that the more fine grained option to preserve just the timestamp > is non-standard afaik. You could try that first and fall back to -p ... > Otherwise, failing hard linking and using "cp -p", I'm afraid I'd prefer > symlinking despite the arguments against it that you name in the > description.
I guess I'm missing something, is there a reason to keep/copy the timestamps of the original files? > Might be good to have someone else's view here as well. Indeed. -- Anthony PERARD
