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: <1170806622.29759.1063.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:03:42 +0000
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	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, 2007-02-06 at 15:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > Really, if our config is set up in sensible submenus (as in general it
> > _is_), the "see everything" behaviour really isn't bad.
> 
> There are two fundamental problems with that statement:
> 
>  - no, it really isn't always
> 
>    Quite often, our Kconfig files have dependencies that are about where 
>    the *code* exists, rather than about some nice hierarchical system.
> 
>    Think of it this way: would you use a programming language that didn't 
>    allow you anything but totally hierarcical language constructs? No sane 
>    person would - because real life isn't hierarchical. Yes, there are 
>    many things that are, but not all things are.
> 
>    Example: many cryptographic algorithms are in crypto/. But then a lot 
>    of them ARE NOT. They are in arch/so-and-so/crypto/ or similar. Notice? 
> 
>    NOT HIERARCHICAL.

It isn't that far off, and we could improve it if we wanted to. In
_general_ it's quite good already.

>  - I don't use menus at all. I use the good old textual "make oldconfig". 
>    Trust me, I _want_ those irrelevant questions gone. They aren't "grayed 
>    out".
> 
> So you seem to have this *wish* that real life was different than it is. 
> But we aren't hierarchical, and even if we were, it *still* wouldn't work 
> the way you want things to work.

It would work quite nicely in the graphical tools, although you've
thrown me a little by wanting it in the hacker's tool 'oldconfig' too.
You obviously care more about turning stuff _on_ with 'make oldconfig'
while other people who've spoken up seem to care more, as I do, about
turning stuff _off_ that way. If I want my hand held, I'm happy enough
to use the graphical tools.

I think the answer is probably just to go ahead and implement the 'make
oldconfig_noselect' so we can all have what we want.

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/