Re: whence CONFIG_PROVE_SPIN_LOCKING?

From: Denis Vlasenko
Date: Sun Mar 18 2007 - 17:42:50 EST


Hi,

On Sunday 18 March 2007 22:06, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> p.s. just FYI, i ran my "find dead CONFIG variables" script on the
> entire tree and, as we speak, there are 316 preprocessor tests that
> are testing variables of the form "CONFIG_whatever" for which that
> option is not set anywhere in the tree. (that is, 316 distinct
> variables, not just 316 distinct tests.) see the attached script and
> feel free to run it from the top of the tree on your favourite
> directory or sub-directory.

In busybox project we adopted the usage of -Wundef
and we try to minimize usage of #ifdef CONFIG_xxx - each boolean
CONFIG_xxx option for busybox is accompanied with
ENABLE_xxx #define which is 1 or 0, never "undefined",
and we check it instead of CONFIG_xxx.

Because if -Wundef, gcc complains whenever we use #if
on undefined ENABLE_xxx.
--
vda
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/