linux-kernel - Re: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] 2.6.25 regression: VIDEO

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: <20080128102232.4282eef9@gaivota>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:22:32 -0200
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Trent Piepho <xyzzy@...akeasy.org>,
	Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
	v4l-dvb-maintainer@...uxtv.org,
	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v4l-dvb-maintainer] 2.6.25 regression: VIDEO_DEV=y/m, I2C=n
 compile error

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:12:45 +0200
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:49:12AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > Maybe the kernel headers should provide a couple macros for testing
> > > configs, since people get it wrong over and over again?
> > > 
> > > #define CONFIG_ON(x) (defined(CONFIG_##x) || defined(CONFIG_##x##_MODULE))
> > > #define CONFIG_AVAIABLE(x) (defined(CONFIG_##x) || (defined(MODULE) && defined(CONFIG_##x##_MODULE)))
> > 
> > Seems a good idea to me.
> > > 
> > > Not sure what to do about VIDEO_DEV=y, I2C=m.  It should be possible except
> > > for this function.
> > 
> > I don't see much sense on allowing v4l2-common being in-kernel, while having
> > I2C as module. Also, creating a separate module for just a single function
> > seems to be overkill.
> > 
> > IMO, in this specific case, v4l2-common should also be a module. Not sure,
> > however,the better syntax on Kconfig. Once, someone suggested a very weird
> > syntax, like:
> > 
> > 	depends on I2C if I2C
> 
> Why does anyone want to introduce such a weird syntax for something 
> that already works with the simple
> 
> 	depends on I2C || I2C=n

On that time, I nacked the weird syntax. The one you've pointed seems good
enough.

Trent,

Could you please prepare the changeset for the macro, as suggested by Ian?

I'll rewrite my patch to use your macro, and add the "depends on" syntax as
suggested by Adrian.

Cheers,
Mauro
--
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/