On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 07:09:40PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:30:31AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Maybe not "bool" vs "mbool", but it might be nice to have > > > > > > bool FB_PS3 > > > depends strictly on FB > > > > > > ie a "depends strictly" refuses to upgrade a bool dependency from "m" to > > > "y", while a regular depends allows it. > > > > > > Or something.. The "depends strictly on X" thing would really be just a > > > mental shorthand for "depends on (X)=y" (it's actually longer to type, > > > but > > > I think it's a bit more intuitive, thus "mental shortcut"). > > > > There's a fun side question, though: what should allmodconfig do? FB=m, > > FB_PS3=n? Or FB=y, FB_PS3=y? > > >From `make help': > | New config selecting modules when possible > > FB can be a module, so FB=m, FB_PS3=n. > > It doesn't say anything about things that can't be modules :-) > > But I agree the chances of getting a system that doesn't work increase...
No, I realize what kind of behaviour we'll get if we go for dependency on FB=y. However, if we really introduce a new kconfig primitive, it might make sense to teach allmodconfig to deal with it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
