linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ISDN: make ICN not auto-grab port 0x320

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:45:14 +0200
From:	Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, fritz@...n4linux.de,
	kkeil@...e.de, isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ISDN: make ICN not auto-grab port 0x320


On 12-08-08 16:03, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 03:53:33PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
>> On 12-08-08 15:43, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>>> Currently, we have a tristate that turns into a y/n bool if !MODULES. 
>>>>  What would be real nice here is a tristate that turns into a m/n 
>>>> bool if  !RANDOM, where allyesconfig and randconfig would pre-select 
>>>> RANDOM.
>>> allyesconfig is not random.
>> Oh, how very, very important. s/RANDOM/!SPECIFIC/ then (and I meant "if  
>> RANDOM" ofcourse).
>>
>> The point is just that such a tristate would be a one-stop mark for  
>> drivers/options that you want to be  specifically selected for builtin  
>> use since they're not necessarily expected to boot on general PCs.
> 
> The part of what you want that is AFAIK not possible with the current 
> kconfig is the "allyesconfig and randconfig would pre-select".
> 
> The actual dependencies on such an option could trivially be expressed 
> the way you want it.

Obviously, and that's what is already being done. The point is that as a 
kconfig intrinsic it doesn't add complexity.

> But I'm trying to make the kconfig dependencies more robust by making 
> them less complex, and making them more complex for this developer-only
> use case is nonsense.

There's nothing complex about

config FOO
	modstate "Dafttech Boot Breaker 2000 support"

with a modstate being;

- a tristate when !CONFIG_RANDOM
- an m/n choice otherwise

And note that it's not "single developer use case". Feel how you want 
about anyone, but it's about useful testing being done. It's about 
developers getting bugs reported to them as a result.

Rene.
--
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/