Hi Masahiro,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:56:07PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Commit 246cf9c26bf1 ("kbuild: Warn on selecting symbols with unmet
> direct dependencies") forcibly promoted ->dir_dep.tri to yes from mod.
> So, the unmet direct dependencies of tristate symbols are not reported.
>
> [Test Case]
>
> config MODULES
> def_bool y
> option modules
>
> config A
> def_bool y
> select B
>
> config B
> tristate "B"
> depends on m
>
> This causes unmet dependency because 'B' is forced 'y' ignoring
> 'depends on m'. This should be warned.
>
> On the other hand, the following case ('B' is bool) should not be
> warned, so 'depends on m' for bool symbols should be naturally treated
> as 'depends on y'.
>
> [Test Case2 (not unmet dependency)]
>
> config MODULES
> def_bool y
> option modules
>
> config A
> def_bool y
> select B
>
> config B
> bool "B"
> depends on m
>
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in v4:
> - newly added
>
>
> scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
> index 0f7eba7..def860b 100644
> --- a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
> @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ static void sym_calc_visibility(struct symbol *sym)
> tri = yes;
> if (sym->dir_dep.expr)
> tri = expr_calc_value(sym->dir_dep.expr);
> - if (tri == mod)
> + if (sym->type == S_BOOLEAN && tri == mod)
This seems to be very close to one of the issues fixed in the old
v2.6.5 commit 5a87d187fce1 ("[PATCH] config: choice fix") accessible at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/history/history.git/commit/?h=5a87d187fce1
IMHO you could probably use (not tested!):
+ if (tri == mod && sym_get_type(sym) == S_BOOLEAN)
instead of
+ if (sym->type == S_BOOLEAN && tri == mod)
to be consistent with the rest of sym_calc_visibility().
Also, since after this commit there will be a great amount of symmetry
between how dirdep/revdep/weak-revdep are calculated inside
sym_calc_visibility(), somebody could probably unify the implementations
in future (not subject of this patch).
> tri = yes;
> if (sym->dir_dep.tri != tri) {
> sym->dir_dep.tri = tri;
> @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ void sym_calc_value(struct symbol *sym)
> }
> }
> calc_newval:
> - if (sym->dir_dep.tri == no && sym->rev_dep.tri != no) {
> + if (sym->dir_dep.tri < sym->rev_dep.tri) {
Looks good.
> struct expr *e;
> e = expr_simplify_unmet_dep(sym->rev_dep.expr,
> sym->dir_dep.expr);
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Best regards,
Eugeniu.
