[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E2FCE2A.3000909@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:36:58 +0200
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Cc: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>,
Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, sam@...nborg.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, plagnioj@...osoft.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] kconfig: Introduce KCONFIG(), KCONFIG_BUILTIN()
and KCONFIG_MODULE()
On 27.7.2011 06:35, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:42:04 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Arnaud Lacombe<lacombar@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Randy Dunlap<rdunlap@...otime.net> wrote:
>>>> I guess I prefer your ENABLED() syntax then.
>>>>
>>> we need to be careful about namespace pollution/collision.
>>>
>> For the sake of having numbers:
>>
>> % git grep -w ENABLED . | wc -l
>> 116
>> % git grep -w CONFIGURED . | wc -l
>> 11
>> % git grep -w KCONFIG . | wc -l
>> 1
>
> OK. Then I would go back to a predicate like the original patch had,
> e.g.:
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA)
Good idea. Is anyone against
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO)
IS_ENABLED_BUILTIN(CONFIG_FOO)
IS_ENABLED_MODULE(CONFIG_FOO)
?
Michal
--
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