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

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jani Nikula
<jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:25 AM Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> BTW how about adding a new Kconfig option to hide the details of
> >> ( BAR || !BAR) ? as Jason already explained and suggested, this will
> >> make it easier for the users and developers to understand the actual
> >> meaning behind this tristate weird condition.
> >>
> >> e.g have a new keyword:
> >>      reach VXLAN
> >> which will be equivalent to:
> >>      depends on VXLAN && !VXLAN
> >
> > I'd love to see that, but I'm not sure what keyword is best. For your
> > suggestion of "reach", that would probably do the job, but I'm not
> > sure if this ends up being more or less confusing than what we have
> > today.
>
> Ah, perfect bikeshedding topic!
>
> Perhaps "uses"? If the dependency is enabled it gets used as a
> dependency.

That seems to be the best naming suggestion so far

> Of course, this is all just talk until someone(tm) posts a patch
> actually making the change. I've looked at the kconfig tool sources
> before; not going to make the same mistake again.

Right. OTOH whoever implements it gets to pick the color of the
bikeshed. ;-)

      Arnd