Re: [RFC 0/6] Regressions for "imply" behavior change

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:38 PM Nicolas Pitre <nico@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > I have created workarounds for the Kconfig files, which now stop using
> > > imply and do something else in each case. I don't know whether there was
> > > a bug in the kconfig changes that has led to allowing configurations that
> > > were not meant to be legal even with the new semantics, or if the Kconfig
> > > files have simply become incorrect now and the tool works as expected.
> >
> > In most cases it is the code that has to be fixed. It typically does:
> >
> >         if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO))
> >                 foo_init();
> >
> > Where it should rather do:
> >
> >         if (IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_FOO))
> >                 foo_init();
> >
> > A couple of such patches have been produced and queued in their
> > respective trees already.
> 
> I try to use IS_REACHABLE() only as a last resort, as it tends to
> confuse users when a subsystem is built as a module and already
> loaded but something relying on that subsystem does not use it.

Then this is a usage policy issue, not a code correctness issue.

The correctness issue is fixed with IS_REACHABLE(). If you want to 
enforce a usage policy then this goes in Kconfig.

But you still can do both.


Nicolas