On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Catalin Marinas wrote: > The "select" statement in Kconfig files allows the enabling of options > even if they have unmet direct dependencies (i.e. "depends on" expands > to "no"). Currently, the "depends on" clauses are used in calculating > the visibility but they do not affect the reverse dependencies in any > way. > > The patch introduces additional tracking of the "depends on" statements > and does not allow selecting an option if its direct dependencies are > not met, also printing a warning. > > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> I guess this will change the behaviour of a number of subsystems, likely causing unexpected regressions. I think your change makes sense, but we need to be much more careful. Can you extract a list of configuration symbols that are impacted by your patch? A possibly way out could be to annotate all of them first by changing --- config FOO bool config BAR depends on FOO config BAZ select BAR --- so that we either get config BAZ select FOO select BAR or alternatively, on a case-by-case basis config BAZ depends on FOO select BAR Once that is in place, all the symbols have a well-defined behaviour and we can safely apply your patch. Arnd <>< -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
