linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Enable building defconfigs from Kconfig files

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:37:23 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: Enable building defconfigs from Kconfig files

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Grant Likely
<grant.likely@...retlab.ca> wrote:
>
> Okay, well I advocate for the -D /dev/null approach then.  I think
> that validating our defaults, and looking for the subtle interactions
> are exactly what we want to be doing when it comes to defconfigs.  The
> fact that a defconfig does *not* want the default value is exactly
> what the defconfigs should be capturing.

Sure. That does have the downside that it absolutely _requires_
changes to the Kconfig language. Because currently "select" can only
set a config variable, it cannot clear it or downgrade it from the
defaults - so if you start from anything but a noconfig, you can't
unset anything.

But that's not a big downside, since honestly either approach will
want it anyway (even -n wants it for setting integer or string options
- never mind the whole issue of making it easier/cleaner to write the
files in the first place).

>>          set NODES_SHIFT 10
>
> I'm partial to extending select statements myself because it fits
> nicely into the existing grammer; but I can see value in having a set
> statement too.

If it turns out easier to just implement the "set value" as a "select
with a value", that's fine by me too. If the syntax for setting a
particular value ends up being

   select NODES_SHIFT 10

that still works (with or without a "=" there). It looks a bit odd to
me, but that's probably just because it's new. It doesn't look _wrong_
by any stretch.

> It would eliminate the temporary config options that
> both my and Stephen's patch would add.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having the extra config
option just to drive the "select" syntax. In fact, in many cases I
think it would be "documentation", because I think the extra config
option should generally be named by the platform that you're actually
selecting for - even if that name may not be used for anything else.

So having the basic syntax for a Kconfig.xyz file be something like

         config SIDEWINDER_PLATFORM
              def_bool y
              select ...

where that initial config/def_bool is strictly not needed for the
actual end result, but is used to get to the select statements, and to
include that "SIDEWINDER_PLATFORM=y" in the resulting .config as a
kind of top-level comment all looks fine.

                 Linus
--
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/