[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110112131800.d64c1a86.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:18:00 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zimny Lech <napohybelskurwysynom2010@...il.com>
Subject: Re: on builds/randconfigs (was: [PATCH -next] thermal: depends on
NET)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:35:10 -0500 (EST)
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:
> Do I care about the phantom configs that would be possible
> if these false dependencies were not in place. No,
> not until somebody invents such a system,
> and may be not even then.
>
> Is there a user out there on LKML who can dream up
> a use for one of these phantom configs and claim that
> his life will end if he'd prevented from building it?
> Sure. Does he suffer from a total lack of perspective?
> Yes.
These unusable config combinations should be prevented via Kconfig.
That prevents users from selecting them, which otherwise adds to
our workload and to theirs. It also prevents false-positives
during our useful randconfig testing.
--
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