On 07/04/2014 09:29 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 03/07/2014 17:04, Christoffer Dall ha scritto: >> Hmmm, I'm really not an expert in the 'established procedures' for what >> to put in config files etc., but here's my basic take: >> >> a) you wouldn't put a config option in Kconfig unless it's comething >> that's actually configurable or some generic feature/subsystem that >> should only be enabled if hardware has certain capabilities or other >> config options enabled. >> >> b) this seems entirely an implementation issue and not depending on >> anything users should select. > > Actually I think Mario's idea is just fine. Non-user-accessible Kconfig > symbols are used a lot to invoke an #ifdef elsewhere in the code; > compare this with his proposal is a bit different but not too much. > > Sometimes #defines are used, sometimes Kconfig symbols, but the idea is > the same. > > Paolo Hi Paolo, thanks for your feedback. I forgot to add that I tried define ARCH_HAVE_... approach but checkpatch rejected it and insisted on Kconfig. Thanks, - Mario -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
