On 22.06.2021 20:21, Andrew Cooper wrote: > @@ -23,23 +21,32 @@ run: $(TARGET-y) > > .PHONY: clean > clean: > - $(RM) -f -- *.o .*.d .*.d2 test-cpu-policy > + $(RM) -- *.o $(TARGETS) $(DEPS_RM) > > .PHONY: distclean > distclean: clean > - $(RM) -f -- *~ > + $(RM) -- *~ > > .PHONY: install > install: all > + $(INSTALL_DIR) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN) > + $(if $(TARGETS),$(INSTALL_PROG) $(TARGETS) $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)) > > .PHONY: uninstall > +uninstall: > + $(RM) -- $(addprefix $(DESTDIR)$(LIBEXEC_BIN)/,$(TARGETS)) > > -CFLAGS += -Werror $(CFLAGS_xeninclude) -D__XEN_TOOLS__ -O3 > +CFLAGS += -Werror -D__XEN_TOOLS__ > +CFLAGS += $(CFLAGS_xeninclude) > CFLAGS += $(APPEND_CFLAGS) > > -vpath %.c ../../../xen/lib/x86 > +LDFLAGS += $(APPEND_LDFLAGS) > + > +vpath %.c $(XEN_ROOT)/xen/lib/x86
Is this a good move? In general I think relative references are better, because it is then possible to move the tree as a whole (or access it from multiple locations, where each one has it appearing in a different place in the file system). I do realize though that we have many such absolute references, so this one more isn't making things much worse. Still Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> preferably with it left relative (or a strong reason for making it absolute spelled out in the description). Jan
