Re: [PATCH] Makefile: add missing dependencies of 'config-list.h'

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 13, 2021, 19:07 UTC
Message-ID: <87czuy2ec2.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YG+UeQRwdBsVeRNV@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Apr 09 2021, Jeff King wrote:

Show 39 quoted lines

> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:08:23AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> > -config-list.h:
>> > +config-list.h: Documentation/*config.txt Documentation/config/*.txt
>> >  	$(QUIET_GEN)$(SHELL_PATH) ./generate-configlist.sh \
>> >  		>$@+ && mv $@+ $@
>> >  
>> >  command-list.h: generate-cmdlist.sh command-list.txt
>> >  
>> > -command-list.h: $(wildcard Documentation/git*.txt) Documentation/*config.txt Documentation/config/*.txt
>> > +command-list.h: $(wildcard Documentation/git*.txt)
>> >  	$(QUIET_GEN)$(SHELL_PATH) ./generate-cmdlist.sh \
>> >  		$(patsubst %,--exclude-program %,$(EXCLUDED_PROGRAMS)) \
>> >  		command-list.txt >$@+ && mv $@+ $@
>> 
>> This change makes sense.
>
> I agree it looks like it's moving in the right direction, but I am
> slightly puzzled by the existing code. Why do we need to use $(wildcard)
> for git*.txt, but not for the others?
>
>> I have a not-yet-submitted patch series where I added some more
>> config/*/*.txt that wouldn't be caught by this rule, I'd updated the
>> Documentation/Makefile, but missed this part in the top-level Makefile.
>> 
>> So a relation question: Does anyone actually prefer this state of
>> affairs of having a Makefile, Documentation/Makefile, t/Makefile
>> t/perf/Makefile and template/Makefile?
>> 
>> It seems to me with ever-closer coupling between them that it's getting
>> to be more of a hassle to manage state between them than it would be to
>> just move them all into one big Makefile.
>
> Yes, I'm generally a fan of avoiding recursive make when we can. I think
> the caveats are:
>
>   - it would be nice to continue to have stub Makefiles in
>     sub-directories that trigger the main one (so "cd t && make"
>     continues to work, for example).

Yeah, we should definitely keep those in place. I also wonder if various rules for local wildcards will be more complex when they need to reach into subdirectories.

Show 9 quoted lines

>   - we may need some cleanup of parts of the top-level Makefile which
>     are triggered without dependencies (e.g., I think we unconditionally
>     run some scripts to compute GIT_VERSION in the top-level; this is
>     already a bit wasteful, but may get even more so as we add more
>     rules from sub-directories).
>
> Mostly my argument against it (and why I haven't purused it) would be:
> it sounds like a lot of work and risk of regression, and the current
> system seems pretty fine in practice.

One edge case I discovered the other day but didn't bother debugging much was make at the top-level failing because "doc.dep" in Documentation/Makefile uses this pattern:

    rm x &&
    script >x

Which would normally work in one Makefile, but in this case two rules in the top-level called unrelated "make -C Documentation [...]", so both of those sub-processes end up needing to generate the doc.dep, and they race each other.

Another thing fixed (or, worked around) with a wider application of [1].

1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/patch-3.6-96e2338ed8e-20210329T161723Z-avarab@gmail.com/