linux-kernel - Re: [patch] MTD: fix DOC2000/2001/2001PLUS build error

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

Message-Id: <20070206143956.b09c674d.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:39:56 -0800
From:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] MTD: fix DOC2000/2001/2001PLUS build error

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:38:04 +0000 David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 08:53 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > WE WANT TO BE NICE.
> >  - the firewall example was not an example of 'select', but of the "we 
> >    want to be nice". But you simply DID NOT GET IT.
> 
> It's a very clever straw man, Linus, but it's still bogus. Not only do I
> _agree_ about the firewall example, I've even implemented very similar
> things already, of my own accord. I really do get it.
> 
> I don't claim that we shouldn't "be nice". You keep coming back to that
> but it bears no relation to what I'm actually saying.
> 
> >  - the USB and SATA examples are *also* examples of "we want to be nice", 
> >    and hell yeah, you need 'select' to do them. Claiming anything else is 
> >    just stupid.
> >
> > So: are you stupid, or do you just refuse to even think about it? 
> 
> I claim that there are _better_ ways to do it than 'select'. I claim
> that we can 'be nice' without actually screwing over the people who use
> non-interactive config methods and need to turn stuff off. A number of
> whom have spoken up already but are perhaps less quixotic than I am so
> have given up on getting you to listen.

Even with the interactive tools it's difficult to turn symbols off
if they are selected in multiple places.  But that's the old tools
issue.

But Andrew has done a great job of trying to minimize 'select'
in Kconfig files.

> 99% of the times I configure a kernel, it's in an RPM package. The
> answer "you can use xconfig and press the question mark" isn't
> wonderfully useful -- although having xconfig be the answer for those
> who need the extra guidance that 'select' currently offers is perhaps a
> more reasonable solution.
> 
> But it doesn't matter. I'll come up with a hack for the tools which make
> them (optionally) treat 'select' of a user-visible option as if it was
> just 'depends on'. And that should fix the problem.

Yes, that's the solution that I decided on during lunch also:
	select <==> depends on


---
~Randy
-
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/