On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:29:36 +0200 (CEST) Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > AFAICT, there is nothing similar when using *_defconfig; one must copy > > a .config manually, and then run silentoldconfig. Simply running the > > associated _defconfig will quietly update the config (which may silently > > drop config options). This patch adds a *_silentdefconfig target, with > > semantics similar to silentoldconfig. It will take the defconfig from > > arch/$(ARCH)/configs/$x_defconfig, check for changes, and if there are > > none, write out a .config. If there have been changes and stdin is > > valid, it will prompt for updates. If there have been changes and > > stdin is not valid, it will bail out with an error. > > I would really like to avoid another input mode. > I think it be better to implement this as a combination of "-s -D > <default>" and the silent mode is adjusted to read another config instead > of .config if defconfig_file is set. > As would I; however, that requires using getopt() (or equivalent). I wasn't sure if there was some opposition to this.. Of course, we'll still need some way from the makefile to call it. I take it you're not opposed to 'make foo_silentdefconfig'? > > A few things to note: > > - Using getopt() in scripts/kconfig/conf.c would likely simplify things, > > but that's a much larger patch. Is there a reason we don't use it? > > Not really. > Cool, I'll submit a patch that does this. > > - To make it truly silent, I had to change conf_write() to accept an > > additional arg. The alternative is to not have conf_write spit out > > any information when it writes a file. Personally, I don't see the need > > for it to spit out information, but I figured I'd take the more cautious > > route. If folks don't care, I can update this patch to remove it. > > I rather want to keep this print. The .config is already only written, > when it has to be in this mode and then I also want to be notified about > it. > > > - We seem to switch between using _() and not using it for strings; I'm > > assuming that we don't actually care about i18n in conf.c, and that the > > _() stuff was just copied from elsewhere. If that's not the case, I > > can update the patch to wrap strings properly. > > I try to keep this uptodate, but I don't really check for this. > I'm not sure I follow; should I use _(), or no? > bye, Roman -- Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 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/
