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

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, 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

What I don't like about "uses" is that it doesn't convey the conditional 
dependency. It could be mistaken as being synonymous to "select".

What about "depends_if" ? The rationale is that this is actually a 
dependency, but only if the related symbol is set (i.e. not n or empty).

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

Absolutely. But some brainstorming can't hurt.


Nicolas