On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:45:30PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> CONFIG_bar can be undefined, not 'n'. While that can cause problems,
> it is also valid config code. If I interpret AC's cryptic comments
> correctly, there may be code which assumes that undefined variables are
> just that, undefined. Setting all variables to 'n' initially by Adam's
> script will break such code.
Agreed. The person who should know for sure how the configuration system
works is ESR.
> I still think this is the best approach, against 2.4.5-ac22.
One small concern - does it work properly with xconfig and menuconfig?
I seem to remember that they re-evaluate choices, and I have this feeling
that I've seen unselectable symbols caused by define_bool SYM n type stuff.
Note also that we in the ARM port currently have 43 such symbols in either
Linus' or my tree, and there are getting on for 90 such symbols in existence
throughout the ARM trees. (There are around 90 registered ARM machine types
at the moment, each one has their own CONFIG symbol).
Your config.in file could get very large. ;)
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:24 EST