[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0705201243500.1671@shell4.speakeasy.net>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Trent Piepho <xyzzy@...akeasy.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
cc: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
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>
Subject: Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> >> Iterating upwards and downwards the dependency graph is the duty of
> >> "make snafuconfig", not of the maintainers.
>
> ...multi-level dependencies are no problem for it.
>
> There is nothing wrong with
>
> A... depends on B
>
> B... depends on C
>
> # CONFIG_C is not set
>
> -> A is unavailable.
select doesn't appear to work quite like this. For example:
config A
bool "A"
config B
bool "B"
depends on A
config C
bool "C"
select B
In this case, it's possible to turn C on and A off. B will be on, even
though it depends on A and A is off.
The kconfig docs say that "B.. depends on A" sets the maximum value of B
to be that of A. Since A=0, the max value of B is 0.
The kconfig docs also say that "C.. select B" sets the minimum value of B
to be that of C. Since C=2, the minimum value of B is 2.
So we have B>=2 and B<=0, which is obviously impossible. Yet *config has
no problem with this, and will set B=2 even the 'depends' means B must be
0. It seems like "select" will override any other dependencies.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists