lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:14:14 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC] add "enable" to the kconfig language

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?
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@...b.auug.org.au

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists