linux-kernel - Re: tristate and bool not enogh for Kconfig anymore

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: <20071021174748.92abc989.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:47:48 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Henrik Carlqvist <hc1@...lhem.se>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tristate and bool not enogh for Kconfig anymore

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:03:13 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 09:45:17AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > Is there any other way to specify that a functionality can only be built
> > > as a module, not built into the kernel?
> > 
> > config FOO
> > 	depends on BAR && m
> > 
> > restricts FOO to module-only.
> > 
> > > In my firsta attempts to post about these tests my post ended up not on
> > > the mailing list but as a reply to Sam Ravnborg only, apologies for
> > > that...
> 
> This is obviously the right solution.
> Randy - we should document this somewhere together with more kconfig tips'n'tricks.

Agreed.

> A new document or do we extend kconfig-language?

I don't see a need for a separate document.  I would just extend
kconfig-language.

---
~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/