On 6/14/23 22:26, Michael Ellerman wrote:
Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:On 6/13/23 15:21, Kees Cook wrote:On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 01:27:52PM -0400, Eric DeVolder wrote:The Kconfig is refactored to consolidate KEXEC and CRASH options from various arch/<arch>/Kconfig files into new file kernel/Kconfig.kexec.This looks very nice!Thank you Kees![...] - The boolean ARCH_HAS_<option> in effect allows the arch to determine when the feature is allowed. Archs which don't have the feature simply do not provide the corresponding ARCH_HAS_<option>. For each arch, where there previously were KEXEC and/or CRASH options, these have been replaced with the corresponding boolean ARCH_HAS_<option>, and an appropriate def_bool statement. For example, if the arch supports KEXEC_FILE, then the ARCH_HAS_KEXEC_FILE simply has a 'def_bool y'. This permits the KEXEC_FILE option to be available. If the arch has a 'depends on' statement in its original coding of the option, then that expression becomes part of the def_bool expression. For example, arm64 had: config KEXEC depends on PM_SLEEP_SMP and in this solution, this converts to: config ARCH_HAS_KEXEC def_bool PM_SLEEP_SMP - In order to account for the differences in the config coding for the three common options, the ARCH_SUPPORTS_<option> is used. This options has a 'depends on <option>' statement to couple it to the main option, and from there can insert the differences from the common option and the arch original coding of that option. For example, a few archs enable CRYPTO and CRYTPO_SHA256 for KEXEC_FILE. These require a ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_FILE and 'select CRYPTO' and 'select CRYPTO_SHA256' statements.Naming nit: "HAS" and "SUPPORTS" feel very similar, and looking at existing configs, "ARCH_SUPPORTS_..." is already used for doing this kind of bare "bool" management. e.g. see ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128 It looks like you need to split "depends" and "select" so the options can be chosen separately from the "selectable" configs. How about naming this ARCH_SELECTS_<option>, since that's what it's there for?I'm OK with this. Let's see if others agree?Yeah please rename one or both of them. At a glance the difference between HAS and SUPPORTS is very non-obvious. I like Kees' suggestion to use ARCH_SUPPORTS and ARCH_SELECTS. cheers
Michael, ok thanks! eric
|