Re: [PATCH v2] ubifs: fix kconfig dependency warning

[Randy Dunlap]

On 3/30/2011 1:12 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:48 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:04:15 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 08:01 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > On 03/29/11 00:02, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 13:40 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > > From: Randy Dunlap<randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fix another kconfig dependency warning, this time in ubifs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > warning: (UBIFS_FS_DEBUG&&  LOCKDEP&&  LATENCYTOP) selects KALLSYMS_ALL which has unmet direct dependencies (DEBUG_KERNEL&&  KALLSYMS)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Without this patch, we can have:
> > > > > > # CONFIG_KALLSYMS is not set
> > > > > > CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL=y
> > > > > > which is useless (does nothing unless KALLSYMS is enabled).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, ubifs builds successfully with or without this patch,
> > > > > > and it builds with this line completely deleted,
> > > > > > so what was this 'select' for?  Just developer convenience?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, here is the idea. You can compile UBIFS with debugging and without
> > > > > debugging. Without debugging the resulting ubifs.ko is much smaller, so
> > > > > some embedded people prefer it this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you select debugging support, then we'll compile it a lot of
> > > > > assertions, self-checks, test-modes, extra error messages with detailed
> > > > > dumps. And we want to see stackdumps when errors or problems happen,
> > > > > this is why we select KALLSYMS_ALL.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I guess instead we should do:
> > > > >
> > > > > select KALLSYMS
> > > > > select KALLSYMS_ALL
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that should do it.  Thanks for the explanation.
> > >
> > > Will you submit a patch? Alternatively, I can make it myself. What is
> > > your preference?
> >
> > Here's an updated patch.  But since KALLSYMS_ALL depends on DEBUG_KERNEL,
> > the lines above aren't quite sufficient and I don't care to select
> > DEBUG_KERNEL.
>
> What is the real difference between KALLSYMS_ALL and KALLSYMS? It looks
> like for stack dumps KALLSYMS is enough. The Kconfig help text is not
> very helpful. And when I look at the help text of
> CONFIG_KALLSYMS_EXTRA_PASS I get feeling that this area needs some
> clean-up work.

Yes, KALLSYMS is enough for most of us.

You can see what KALLSYMS_ALL does by looking at scripts/kallsyms.c,
the --all-symbols option:

>         /* if --all-symbols is not specified, then symbols outside the text
>          * and inittext sections are discarded */



> Anyway, any idea why we wouldn't just kill KALLSYMS_ALL by merging it
> with KALLSYMS?

KALLSYMS_ALL probably generates noise for most use cases.

---
--
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/