[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E3670BF.6000709@suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:24:15 +0200
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: Peter Foley <pefoley2@...izon.net>
Cc: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild Mailing List <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
rdunlap@...otime.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kconfig.h fix extraneous dependencies
On 1.8.2011 03:16, Peter Foley wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2011, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Peter Foley<pefoley2@...izon.net> wrote:
>>> The introduction of kconfig.h caused fixdep to create three extraneous
>>> dependencies.
>>> include/config/.h
>>> include/config/h.h
>>> include/config/foo.h
>>>
>>> Remove them by eliminating instances of CONFIG_
>>>
>> this seems ugly to me... I would rather try to fix fixdep, no ?
>>
>> - Arnaud
>
> I'd be the first to admit that this patch is a ugly hack.
> However, judging by the comments in fixdep.c this is expected behavior.
And it's also harmless, the source contains thousands of false matches:
$ git grep '_CONFIG_' | wc -l
7989
e.g anything that includes include/linux/acpi.h gets a false dependency
on include/config/support.h because of
include/linux/acpi.h:#define OSC_EXT_PCI_CONFIG_SUPPORT 1
but it doesn't matter.
> I'm also afraid that changing fixdep to ignore comments would slow down
> the whole build for the sake of one file which IMHO dosen't seem to be a
> worthwhile tradeoff.
I would take a patch that makes fixdep ignore include/linux/kconfig.h,
like it ignores include/generated/kconfig.h. Anything more advanced
isn't worth the effort, IMO.
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