[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100413204427.GZ31193@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:44:27 -0400
From: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com, kyle@...hat.com,
vgoyal@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: introduce nonint_oldconfig and
loose_nonint_oldconfig
> >>> This patch has been around for a long time in Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise
> >>> Linux kernels and it may be useful for others. The nonint_oldconfig target
> >>> will fail and print the unset config options while loose_nonint_oldconfig will
> >>> simply let the config option unset. They're useful in distro kernel packages
> >>> where the config files are built using a combination of smaller config files.
> >>> The patch's author AFAIK is Arjan van de Ven. Arjan, please add a Signed-off-by
> >>> if you're the original author.
> >>
> >> Roland McGrath added the loose parts according to his email of 2008.Mar.05:
> >> "I added this one (loose_nonint_oldconfig target, -B option to conf)."
> > hm, I can't see the -B there, maybe the functionality he's referring to is
> > the def_no?
>
> +loose_nonint_oldconfig: $(obj)/conf
> + $< -B $(Kconfig)
>
> ...
>
> + case 'B':
> + input_mode = dont_ask_dont_tell;
> + break;
ah, duh, you mean he's the author of loose_nonint_oldconfig. I somewhat thought
you said the loose_nonint_oldconfig functionality was already in :)
> >> after Dave Jones posted this patch.
> >>
> >> (adding linux-kbuild mailing list & kbuild maintainer)
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>> @@ -613,5 +641,5 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> >>> exit(1);
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + return return_value;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Having 'make oldconfig' exit with Exit status: 139 (for example)
> >> can be confusing. I know that from experience. It took me a bit
> >> to find out what that meant. That part could be improved...
> > ok, no real reason to keep incrementing that. no different error codes exist
> > other than "1". Do you think we need to introduce different return codes?
> >
>
> I would prefer a fixed value, like 86. or 11. or a useful printf text message.
ok, will refresh and resend
--
Aristeu
--
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