linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] Support conditional deps using "depends on X if Y"

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20251213014009.GA3115176@ax162>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 10:40:09 +0900
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Graham Roff <grahamr@....qualcomm.com>,
	Nicolas Schier <nsc@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@...xnic.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Support conditional deps using "depends on X if Y"

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 05:07:39PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2025, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 09:01:51AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> This is the bit that frequently confuses developers with the
> >> current syntax, and I agree it would be nice to have a better
> >> way,  but I'm not sure the proposal actually helps enough to
> >> warrant a mass-conversion of existing Kconfig files.
> >
> > I do agree that the 'depends on A || !A' syntax is confusing and that
> > this does not really address that but I think that is besides the point
> > here. I also agree that it is probably not worth converting existing
> > users to this syntax (unless there is solid reasoning), I would not want
> > to see cleanup patches of that nature, just use in new code.
> 
> I think "depends on A if A" is an improvement over "A || !A". But not a
> drastic improvement.

Agreed.

> I think the question is, can we figure out an even better syntax for
> that use case? Something that conveys the "optionally depends on A"
> meaning? Is there something so good that it would warrant cleanup
> conversions just for the improved clarity?

I cannot think of anything off the top of my head but given how new I am
to actually maintaining Kconfig, maybe something else will come up over
time (or maybe Nicolas has some thoughts).

> If we can't come up with anything, let's just roll with what we have
> here?

This is my plan personally, as I feel like this (or the future v3) is
good enough (and brings consistency to "depends" with regards to
supporting "if" like "prompt" and "select" do). I am a firm believer in
"don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

Cheers,
Nathan