linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/6] Regressions for "imply" behavior change

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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200416182106.GX5100@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:21:06 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "narmstrong@...libre.com" <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        "masahiroy@...nel.org" <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        "Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com" 
        <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        "leon@...nel.org" <leon@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com" 
        <kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com>,
        "a.hajda@...sung.com" <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        "jonas@...boo.se" <jonas@...boo.se>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "airlied@...ux.ie" <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "jernej.skrabec@...l.net" <jernej.skrabec@...l.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] Regressions for "imply" behavior change

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:12:56AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jani Nikula
> > <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:25 AM Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> wrote:
> > > >> BTW how about adding a new Kconfig option to hide the details of
> > > >> ( BAR || !BAR) ? as Jason already explained and suggested, this will
> > > >> make it easier for the users and developers to understand the actual
> > > >> meaning behind this tristate weird condition.
> > > >>
> > > >> e.g have a new keyword:
> > > >>      reach VXLAN
> > > >> which will be equivalent to:
> > > >>      depends on VXLAN && !VXLAN
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to see that, but I'm not sure what keyword is best. For your
> > > > suggestion of "reach", that would probably do the job, but I'm not
> > > > sure if this ends up being more or less confusing than what we have
> > > > today.
> > >
> > > Ah, perfect bikeshedding topic!
> > >
> > > Perhaps "uses"? If the dependency is enabled it gets used as a
> > > dependency.
> > 
> > That seems to be the best naming suggestion so far
> 
> What I don't like about "uses" is that it doesn't convey the conditional 
> dependency. It could be mistaken as being synonymous to "select".
> 
> What about "depends_if" ? The rationale is that this is actually a
> dependency, but only if the related symbol is set (i.e. not n or empty).

I think that stretches the common understanding of 'depends' a bit too
far.. A depends where the target can be N is just too strange.

Somthing incorporating 'optional' seems like a better choice
'optionally uses' seems particularly clear and doesn't overload
existing works like depends or select

Jason