[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1347587395.10751.88.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 21:49:55 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] add "enable" to the kconfig language
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 10:14 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have noticed that we use the following paradigm quite a bit theses days:
>
> config <something
> select HAVE_<config1>
>
> config <config1>
> depends on HAVE_<config1>
>
> or similar
>
> I was wondering if it would make sense to replace this with:
>
> config <something
> enable <config1>
>
> config <config1>
> depends on enabled
>
> The advantage of this is that we would not have all the HAVE_ config
> names in our .config files and the generated include files. Of course,
> if config1 does not depend on "enabled", then the "enable <config1>"
> would have no effect (we may want to warn about this).
>
> Comments?
I always hated those HAVE_* configs, especially because they were always
a source of confusion when asking someone if something is enabled...
Them: "The function tracer doesn't work, I don't see any debugfs files"
me: "Do you have FUNCTION_TRACER enabled?"
Them: "Yes, I checked"
me: "You have *FUNCTION_TRACER* not *HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER*?"
Them: "Oh, no I just have HAVE_FUNCTION_TRACER"
BAH!
If you can make 'enable' work, I would definitely Ack converting over to
it.
-- Steve
--
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