linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Kconfig: Enable Kconfig fragments to be used for defconfig

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:21:59 -0600
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Kconfig: Enable Kconfig fragments to be used for 
	defconfig

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 17:04 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> - I haven't figured out a way for the fragment to force an option to
>>   be "n", or to set a value, for example "CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT=16".
>>   This may require changing the syntax.
>> - It still doesn't resolve dependencies.  A solver would help with this.
>>   For the time being I work around the problem by running the generated
>>   config through 'oldconfig' and looking for differences.  If the files
>>   differ (ignoring comments and generateconfig_* options) after oldconfig,
>>   then the <board>_defconfig target returns a failure.  (but leaves the
>>   new .config intact so the user can resolve it with menuconfig).  This
>>   way at least the user is told when a Kconfig fragment is invalid.
>
> The solver would fix the whole issues with the defconfigs , we wouldn't
> need this Kconfig change .. From my perspective we shouldn't be fooling
> around with anything but the solver approach ..

The solver would complement Kconfig fragments, but it doesn't
implement all the functionality.  For instance, it doesn't help a
board config picking up a bunch of options from an SoC or Architecture
config file, especially things that are developer/maintainer choices
as opposed to hard requirements).  Solver on its own is an incremental
improvement over what we currently have, but it doesn't solve the
whole problem.

> It just doesn't feel like Kconfig was meant to do this, it feel like
> somewhat of an abuse ..

Why?  It uses the Kconfig language itself to specify additional
constraints on the final configuration.  Seems to be the essence of
elegance to me.  :-)

g.
--
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/