Re: Documentation of kconfig language differs from implementation regarding existence of symbols
Michal, Martin, All, On Thursday 11 October 2012 22:27:36 Michal Marek wrote: > Dne 10.10.2012 02:17, Martin Walch napsal(a): > > The file linux/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt says: > > > >> The following two methods produce the same kconfig symbol > >> dependencies but differ greatly in kconfig symbol existence > >> (production) in the generated config file. > >> > >> case 1: > >> > >> config FOO tristate "about foo" depends on BAR > >> > >> vs. case 2: > >> > >> if BAR config FOO tristate "about foo" endif > >> > >> In case 1, the symbol FOO will always exist in the config file > >> (given no other dependencies). In case 2, the symbol FOO will > >> only exist in the config file if BAR is enabled. > > > > However, I can not reproduce this. The attached file contains both > > cases. When running make menuconfig, setting BAR0 and BAR1 both to > > n, and saving the configuration, there is neither FOO0 nor FOO1 in > > the resulting configuration file. > > Indeed, that paragraph seems wrong. I think we should revert commit > 64b81ed. Randy, Arnaud? I just tested with Martin's example, and: - indeed, both symbols appear as "is not set", - that paragraph was already wrong for Kconfig at #64b81ed. Before we trim that paragraph away, what's the purpose of the expected difference in behavior for the two constructs? Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-..--.. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `.---: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL| v conspiracy. | '--^---^--^' -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Documentation of kconfig language differs from implementation regarding existence of symbols
Dne 10.10.2012 02:17, Martin Walch napsal(a): > The file linux/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt says: > >> The following two methods produce the same kconfig symbol >> dependencies but differ greatly in kconfig symbol existence >> (production) in the generated config file. >> >> case 1: >> >> config FOO tristate "about foo" depends on BAR >> >> vs. case 2: >> >> if BAR config FOO tristate "about foo" endif >> >> In case 1, the symbol FOO will always exist in the config file >> (given no other dependencies). In case 2, the symbol FOO will >> only exist in the config file if BAR is enabled. > > However, I can not reproduce this. The attached file contains both > cases. When running make menuconfig, setting BAR0 and BAR1 both to > n, and saving the configuration, there is neither FOO0 nor FOO1 in > the resulting configuration file. Indeed, that paragraph seems wrong. I think we should revert commit 64b81ed. Randy, Arnaud? Thanks, Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Documentation of kconfig language differs from implementation regarding existence of symbols
Dne 10.10.2012 02:17, Martin Walch napsal(a): The file linux/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt says: The following two methods produce the same kconfig symbol dependencies but differ greatly in kconfig symbol existence (production) in the generated config file. case 1: config FOO tristate about foo depends on BAR vs. case 2: if BAR config FOO tristate about foo endif In case 1, the symbol FOO will always exist in the config file (given no other dependencies). In case 2, the symbol FOO will only exist in the config file if BAR is enabled. However, I can not reproduce this. The attached file contains both cases. When running make menuconfig, setting BAR0 and BAR1 both to n, and saving the configuration, there is neither FOO0 nor FOO1 in the resulting configuration file. Indeed, that paragraph seems wrong. I think we should revert commit 64b81ed. Randy, Arnaud? Thanks, Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Documentation of kconfig language differs from implementation regarding existence of symbols
Michal, Martin, All, On Thursday 11 October 2012 22:27:36 Michal Marek wrote: Dne 10.10.2012 02:17, Martin Walch napsal(a): The file linux/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt says: The following two methods produce the same kconfig symbol dependencies but differ greatly in kconfig symbol existence (production) in the generated config file. case 1: config FOO tristate about foo depends on BAR vs. case 2: if BAR config FOO tristate about foo endif In case 1, the symbol FOO will always exist in the config file (given no other dependencies). In case 2, the symbol FOO will only exist in the config file if BAR is enabled. However, I can not reproduce this. The attached file contains both cases. When running make menuconfig, setting BAR0 and BAR1 both to n, and saving the configuration, there is neither FOO0 nor FOO1 in the resulting configuration file. Indeed, that paragraph seems wrong. I think we should revert commit 64b81ed. Randy, Arnaud? I just tested with Martin's example, and: - indeed, both symbols appear as is not set, - that paragraph was already wrong for Kconfig at #64b81ed. Before we trim that paragraph away, what's the purpose of the expected difference in behavior for the two constructs? Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-..--.. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `.---: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL| v conspiracy. | '--^---^--^' -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Documentation of kconfig language differs from implementation regarding existence of symbols
The file linux/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt says: > The following two methods produce the same kconfig symbol dependencies > but differ greatly in kconfig symbol existence (production) in the > generated config file. > > case 1: > > config FOO > tristate "about foo" > depends on BAR > > vs. case 2: > > if BAR > config FOO > tristate "about foo" > endif > > In case 1, the symbol FOO will always exist in the config file (given > no other dependencies). In case 2, the symbol FOO will only exist in > the config file if BAR is enabled. However, I can not reproduce this. The attached file contains both cases. When running make menuconfig, setting BAR0 and BAR1 both to n, and saving the configuration, there is neither FOO0 nor FOO1 in the resulting configuration file. According to the documentation, at least FOO0 should exist, even if BAR0 is set to n. But this is not the case. AFAICS, both versions behave equivalently. I suggest changing the documentation accordingly. Regards Martin Walch -- config FOO0 tristate "FOO0" depends on BAR0 config BAR0 tristate "BAR0" config BAR1 tristate "BAR1" if BAR1 config FOO1 tristate "FOO1" endif signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Documentation of kconfig language differs from implementation regarding existence of symbols
The file linux/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt says: The following two methods produce the same kconfig symbol dependencies but differ greatly in kconfig symbol existence (production) in the generated config file. case 1: config FOO tristate about foo depends on BAR vs. case 2: if BAR config FOO tristate about foo endif In case 1, the symbol FOO will always exist in the config file (given no other dependencies). In case 2, the symbol FOO will only exist in the config file if BAR is enabled. However, I can not reproduce this. The attached file contains both cases. When running make menuconfig, setting BAR0 and BAR1 both to n, and saving the configuration, there is neither FOO0 nor FOO1 in the resulting configuration file. According to the documentation, at least FOO0 should exist, even if BAR0 is set to n. But this is not the case. AFAICS, both versions behave equivalently. I suggest changing the documentation accordingly. Regards Martin Walch -- config FOO0 tristate FOO0 depends on BAR0 config BAR0 tristate BAR0 config BAR1 tristate BAR1 if BAR1 config FOO1 tristate FOO1 endif signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
