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

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 02:38:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 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

Uses also  makes sense to me.

> > 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. ;-)

I hope someone takes it up, especially now that imply, which
apparently used to do this, doesn't any more :)

Jason