[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNASMnHJi+42NUABD-FJQ1tTF2y6qaN=vcS9wEr11+7LVTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 21:34:14 +0900
From: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the keys tree
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 9:11 PM David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> > Your touch might be helpful here. CRYPTO_LIB_CHACHA20POLY1305 is a
> > tristate and depends on as well as selects other things that are
> > tristates.
> >
> > Meanwhile BIG_KEYS is a bool, which needs to select
> > CRYPTO_LIB_CHACHA20POLY1305. However, it gets antsy if the the symbol
> > its selecting has =m items in its hierarchy.
> >
> > Any suggestions? The ideal thing to happen would be that the select of
> > CRYPTO_LIB_CHACHA20POLY1305 in BIG_KEYS causes all of the descendants
> > to become =y too.
>
> I think that select is broken in its behaviour - it doesn't propagate the
> selection enforcement up the tree. You could try changing it to a depends on
> or you could put in a select for every dependency.
I agree.
'depends on' will be cleaner.
> I'm not sure there are any
> other options - unless we turn big_key into a module and institute autoloading
> of keytypes on demand.
>
> David
>
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Powered by blists - more mailing lists