linux-kernel - [RFC] add "enable" to the kconfig language

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]

Message-Id: <20120914101414.1e24b28d2cfa8fc030952a58@canb.auug.org.au>
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