On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 04:11 +0200, Pierre Carrier wrote:
> I really, really don't want upstream to be so stupid.
> I might end up being completely wrong, in which case I apologize and
> will buy a drink to author(s) of kconfig I offended.
>
> I went to both extremities of my git repo, v2.6.12 and 3.0rc4, and I
> found in both cases, in linux2.6.git/scripts/kconfig/confdata.c:
> if (p[0] == 'n') {
> sym->def[def].tri = no;
> sym->flags |= def_flags;
> break;Yes, this syntax is accepted. But the canonical format - which you will be used when the config is written out again - is the 'not set' comment. [...] > - Would you therefore agree that declarations should have precedence > over comments? No, '=n' and 'not set' should be treated the same. > - Do we have a good reason for this comment handling code in > kconfig.py is useful? (to me, those comments sound more like "we keep > the default for this one") Yes, to be consistent with the upstream syntax. > - If the answer to the previous 2 questions is "yes", but > implementation of precedence looks tricky/too automagical, can I offer > a patch that replaces all of those comments with "=n" to make the > overwriting of config made in lower-priority files more obvious? I think I would prefer to use '=n'. However others on the kernel team might object to using this syntax. There is no need for you to supply a patch - it's easy enough to do mechanically if and when we decide to make the change. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption] would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. - Bill Gates
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
