On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 04:23:17AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:35:48AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:17:22AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Manuel Bouyer
>> >> >> <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 09:50:03AM +0000, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> >> >> >> Module Name: src
>> >> >> >> Committed By: uebayasi
>> >> >> >> Date: Sat Oct 11 09:50:03 UTC 2014
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Modified Files:
>> >> >> >> src/sys/arch/amd64/conf: XEN3_DOM0 std.xen
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Log Message:
>> >> >> >> Don't include std.ath_hal for XEN3_DOMU.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why ?
>> >> >> > We still support PCI pass-through, so we could have a ath in a domU
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In that case you have to enable xpci/pci at first.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Including "std.ath_hal" means that you pull in ath device code in your
>> >> >> kernel. But you don't have no parent buses. This might be OK for
>> >> >> ath(4), but in general, it means that config(1) doesn't resolve
>> >> >> dependency, and your kernel may be bloated by unnecessary code.
>> >> >
>> >> > why isn't this compiled in only when ath(4) is inclued in config file ?
>> >> > isn't that what attributes are for ?
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand. If you say "config file", is it files.*
>> >> (definition) or std.* (selection)?
>> >
>> > OK, I see. But I still think config should be able to include theses
>> > only if ath or athn is there; wouldn't adding " & ath" at appropriate
>> > places
>> > in files.ath_hal be enough for this to happen ?
>>
>> Instead of:
>>
>> ath_common_files.c ath & athn
>>
>> You can do:
>>
>> define ath: ath_common
>> define athn: ath_common
>> define ath_common
>> ath_common_files.c ath_common
>>
>> I don't understand why you need & or | or those expressions. I think
>> >99% are file with dependency. Or do you want more complex world like
>> this?
>>
>> http://nxr.netbsd.org/source/xref/src-freebsd/sys/conf/files
>
> No, I just want e.g. "options ATHHAL_AR5210" to be a noop if
> ath(4) is not inclued in the kernel config file.
> This way you don't need to mess with these options at all, unless
> you really want a stripped-down kernel.
Understood.
The problem is, there are options that select something, and those
that define flags/params. Attributes (modules) that are neighter
(pseudo) devices or filesystems are selected only by options.
De-selection ("no ...") has the same problem I'll consider this.
