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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:44:50 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, david-b@...bell.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: non-choice related config entries within choice Hi, On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > But one feature I really would like to see is named chocies so we can do stuff like: > > choice X86_PROCESSOR > > config GENERIC_PROCESSOR > bool "A generic X86 processor" > endchoice > > > ... > > choice PPC_PROCESSOR > > config GENERIC_PROCESSOR > bool "A generic PowerPC processor > > endchoice > > The issue here is that we do not today allow the same config option > to appear if more than one choice. What I have in mind is slightly different, above choices would simply be called PROCESSOR, which would tell kconfig that all choices belong to the same group. bye, Roman -- 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