Hi, On 25/10/2023 11:10, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > On 25.10.2023 10:28, Michal Orzel wrote: >> At the moment, in order to use a different defconfig target than default, >> one needs to specify KBUILD_DEFCONFIG=<target> on the command line. >> Switch to weak assignment, so that it can be also obtained from >> environment similar to other KCONFIG/KBUILD variables. >> >> This change will activate the use of KBUILD_DEFCONFIG variable in CI >> build jobs that so far had no effect. > > I'm certainly okay with the change, but the above sentence looks misleading > to me: Yes, the envvar was ignored so far, but isn't it the case that the > envvar as specified in CI matches what Makefile set it to (taking into > account that for RISC-V riscv64_defconfig aliases tiny64_defconfig), and > hence the specifications in build.yaml could be dropped (until such time > where truly an override was intended)? Well, today riscv64_defconfig matches tiny64_defconfig but it can change. Otherwise, why would we need to have 2 identical files? Looking at the latest full build series from Oleksi, only the tiny64_defconfig file gets updated which would be the clear indication that what is specified in the CI matches the author's expectation.
Also, I never mentioned that this change fixes something. I just wrote that it gives a meaning to a variable that so far had no effect. ~Michal
