On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:45:30 +0900 Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao <fernando@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:42 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 13:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > The problem occurs because i386 (as expected) does not define > > > IA64_UNCACHED_ALLOCATOR. I thought that making the select expression > > > depend on IA64 as shown below might silence allmodconfig: > > > > > > select IA64_UNCACHED_ALLOCATOR if IA64 > > > > > > But my guess was wrong and the same warning appeared. It seems that "if" > > > expressions do not prevent allmodconfig from checking the symbol > > > indicated by the select the "if" is conditioning. By the way, is this > > > the expected behaviour? If so, we need to get rid of the reverse > > > dependency, modify the "depends on" line accordingly, and make > > > IA64_UNCACHED_ALLOCATOR selectable. I may be missing the whole point so > > > please correct if I am wrong. > > > > This patch is a bad solution as it requires people to manually select > > the uncached allocator. It should be enabled automatically by MSPEC, > > not the other way round. > > > > Given that MSPEC is clearly marked as depending on IA64, it seems bogus > > for i386 allmodconfig to barf over it and the problem should be fixed > > there instead IMHO. > Agreed. That is why I asked if that was allmodconfig's expected > behaviour. Andrew? > kconfig's `select' isn't very smart. This is one of the reasons why one should avoid using it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |