linux-kernel - Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

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: <46505DBD.5010005@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date:	Sun, 20 May 2007 16:39:57 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 5/20/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> config A
>>         bool-or-tristate "option A"
>>         depends on !PLATFORM_X || HELPER_N_ON_PLATFORM_X
> 
> ??? I didn't get this entry,

"A is available if N is there or if it's a platform other than X."

That would be adequate if N is only present and required on platform X.

> can you give a solid example

Nothing exactly of this sort, but compare for example kernel/power/Kconfig:

config SOFTWARE_SUSPEND
	bool "Software Suspend (Hibernation)"
	depends on PM && SWAP && (((X86 || PPC64_SWSUSP) &&
		(!SMP || SUSPEND_SMP)) || ((FRV || PPC32) && !SMP))

Of course this could be written in a clearer fashion, for example as

	depends on PM
	depends on SWAP
	depends on (X86 && !SMP) ||
	           (X86 && SUSPEND_SMP) ||
	           (PPC64_SWSUSP && !SMP) ||
	           (PPC64_SWSUSP && SUSPEND_SMP) ||
	           (FRV   && !SMP) ||
	           (PPC32 && !SMP)

(Untested.)  Anyway, the dependencies which we are looking at here
should not (and partially even cannot) be declared in reverse.

> (you can consider
> the case at hand, MOUSE_ATARI and ATARI_KBD_CORE itself). Better
> still, if you really think that the above is a better way to solve the
> problem at hand, why don't you submit a patch instead?

Because I am lazy and trust that the platform maintainers know best
about the dependencies of MOUSE_ATARI.  Could also be related to that I
as an Amiga owner cannot really relate to Atari. ;-)  Could also have
something to do with my being busy enough fixing bugs in the drivers I
am familiar with.  (Granted, I should shut up, ignore how Kconfig is
more and more turned into a mess, and concentrate on my primary business.)
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/