linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ISDN: make ICN not auto-grab port 0x320

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:23:26 +0300
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, fritz@...n4linux.de,
	kkeil@...e.de, isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ISDN: make ICN not auto-grab port 0x320

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:45:14PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
>
> On 12-08-08 16:03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 03:53:33PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
>>> On 12-08-08 15:43, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Currently, we have a tristate that turns into a y/n bool if 
>>>>> !MODULES.  What would be real nice here is a tristate that turns 
>>>>> into a m/n bool if  !RANDOM, where allyesconfig and randconfig 
>>>>> would pre-select RANDOM.
>>>> allyesconfig is not random.
>>> Oh, how very, very important. s/RANDOM/!SPECIFIC/ then (and I meant 
>>> "if  RANDOM" ofcourse).
>>>
>>> The point is just that such a tristate would be a one-stop mark for   
>>> drivers/options that you want to be  specifically selected for 
>>> builtin  use since they're not necessarily expected to boot on 
>>> general PCs.
>>
>> The part of what you want that is AFAIK not possible with the current  
>> kconfig is the "allyesconfig and randconfig would pre-select".
>>
>> The actual dependencies on such an option could trivially be expressed  
>> the way you want it.
>
> Obviously, and that's what is already being done. The point is that as a  
> kconfig intrinsic it doesn't add complexity.
>
>> But I'm trying to make the kconfig dependencies more robust by making  
>> them less complex, and making them more complex for this developer-only
>> use case is nonsense.
>
> There's nothing complex about
>
> config FOO
> 	modstate "Dafttech Boot Breaker 2000 support"

What happens if another option selects FOO?

As soon as you mix select's with dependencies and tristates you are at 
the heart of all kconfig complexity...

> with a modstate being;
>
> - a tristate when !CONFIG_RANDOM
> - an m/n choice otherwise

You don't need to add a new syntax for that.

> And note that it's not "single developer use case". Feel how you want  
> about anyone, but it's about useful testing being done. It's about  
> developers getting bugs reported to them as a result.

It is something that would only be used by a handful of kernel developers.

It's like randconfig, where having to force CONFIG_STANDALONE=y never 
was a real obstable.

> Rene.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/