| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707212112060.21737@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr> Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 21:14:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de> To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use menuconfig objects - Fusion On Jul 21 2007 15:05, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> +menuconfig FUSION >... >> +if FUSION >> >> config FUSION_SPI >... >> +endif # FUSION > > i just *know* i'm going to regret asking this, but is there a >compelling reason why the internal contents of a "menuconfig FUBAR" >needs to still be surrounded by a "if FUBAR" condition? Note that if/endif actually translates to a "depends on" for every contained object. I prefer the reduced clutter [if/endif] over having explicit depends on on every object, since it is redundant. >wouldn't it >be philosophically cleaner if the internals of a menuconfig structure >*automatically* depended on selection of the menuconfig and the "if" >part was implicit? "menuconfig" is not a start marker like "menu" was. Hence it has no "stop" marker either. We would need a new object type for that. > and having said that, i realize that there are menuconfig examples >for which the above is not strictly true, but i can't remember where >i've seen them. all i remember about them is that they we're a bit >confusing. Jan -- - 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