On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:35:10 -0500 (EST) > Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Do I care about the phantom configs that would be possible > > if these false dependencies were not in place. No, > > not until somebody invents such a system, > > and may be not even then. > > > > Is there a user out there on LKML who can dream up > > a use for one of these phantom configs and claim that > > his life will end if he'd prevented from building it? > > Sure. Does he suffer from a total lack of perspective? > > Yes. > > These unusable config combinations should be prevented via Kconfig. > That prevents users from selecting them, which otherwise adds to > our workload and to theirs. It also prevents false-positives > during our useful randconfig testing. But it is kind of difficult to achieve IMhO. For example, there are options that are only SELECTed if something else is set, but randconfig doesn't seem to care. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
