[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50772BB8.6080404@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:27:36 +0200
From: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
To: Martin Walch <walch.martin@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Documentation of kconfig language differs from implementation
regarding existence of symbols
Dne 10.10.2012 02:17, Martin Walch napsal(a):
> The file linux/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt says:
>
>> The following two methods produce the same kconfig symbol
>> dependencies but differ greatly in kconfig symbol existence
>> (production) in the generated config file.
>>
>> case 1:
>>
>> config FOO tristate "about foo" depends on BAR
>>
>> vs. case 2:
>>
>> if BAR config FOO tristate "about foo" endif
>>
>> In case 1, the symbol FOO will always exist in the config file
>> (given no other dependencies). In case 2, the symbol FOO will
>> only exist in the config file if BAR is enabled.
>
> However, I can not reproduce this. The attached file contains both
> cases. When running make menuconfig, setting BAR0 and BAR1 both to
> n, and saving the configuration, there is neither FOO0 nor FOO1 in
> the resulting configuration file.
Indeed, that paragraph seems wrong. I think we should revert commit
64b81ed. Randy, Arnaud?
Thanks,
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