[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACqU3MX7p-3sM=L3MQygyr9=sBkpSHcvk9ponxJTh2i=c=YiKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:31:52 -0400
From: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
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()
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz> wrote:
> 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)
> ?
>
I'm good with the naming, but how would you define those ? I may have
trouble to discern between IS_ENABLED() and IS_ENABLED_BUILTIN().
- Arnaud
> 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