[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902211651180.18221@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:53:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, zippel@...ux-m68k.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kconfig: check for select dependency errors on config
load
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> We do not want to have such hardcoded information
> about the Kconfig structure in the backend.
> Rather we should fix the configuration once and for all so EMBEDDED
> get split into the sensible options is actually is.
>
> Options that come to my mind is:
> OPTIMIZE_FOR_TEXT_SIZE
> OPTIMIZE_FOR_DATA_SIZE
> KERNEL_EXPERT
>
> And we should them make their use of select conform
> like the rest of the kernel configuration.
>
> So the first version of your patch is IMO better - but
> it could use some comments so others better follows what is
> going on. The current level of comments in the kconfig
> source base is not an example to follw
Sounds good. Yeah, the first patch was an RFC mainly because I want
someone to look at the code and tell me "yeah that works" or "No! you
can't do that". Because I spent several hours staring at the kconfig code
trying to figure out WTF it was doing. Luckily, I did have a compiler
writing course and the flex and bison code was fine for me.
I will definitely update the code with comments when I'm more comfortable
with the code.
-- Steve
--
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