On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:18:39AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:40:26PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:34:20PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > >> > > >> > Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> writes: [...] > >> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/Kconfig b/virt/kvm/Kconfig > >> > > index cca7e06..72143cf 100644 > >> > > --- a/virt/kvm/Kconfig > >> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/Kconfig > >> > > @@ -54,3 +54,6 @@ config HAVE_KVM_IRQ_BYPASS > >> > > > >> > > config HAVE_KVM_VCPU_ASYNC_IOCTL > >> > > bool > >> > > + > >> > > +config HAVE_KVM_VCPU_RUN_PID_CHANGE > >> > > + bool > >> > > >> > This almost threw me as I thought you might be able to enable this and > >> > break the build, but apparently not: > >> > > >> > Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Without a "help", the option seems non-interactive and cannot be true > >> unless something selects it. It seems a bit weird to me too, but the > >> idiom appears widely used... > >> > > Indeed, I've copied this idiom from other things before and nobody has > > complained, so I think it works (without any further deep insights into > > the inner workings of Kconfig). > > It's fine. My main worry was breaking bisection with the normal "make > olddefconfig" approach. I tested it and found it to be fine and I don't > think we need to worry about people adding the symbol to .config > manually - they get to keep both pieces ;-) I wasted a fair amount of time at some point in the past trying to work out why I couldn't set one of these options by echo CONFIG_FOO=y >>.config ... That was fun ;) Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
