On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 10:30 Fri 13 May , Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_BIOS
>> > > - if (!rt->signature) {
>> > > + if (config_is_pci_bios() && !rt->signature) {
>> >
>> > Makes sense - but please name it in a more obvious way, such as:
>> >
>> > pci_bios_enabled()
>> the idea to generate the macro via Kconfig
>
> Okay, and there we are stuck with whatever the Kconfig name is. (we could
> rename that but not needed really)
>
> Why not the canonical config_pci_bios() variant? It's the shortest one to
> write. The '_is' looks pretty superfluous to me.
>
> Hm, i guess it could be mixed up with a function that configures the pci_bios.
>
> I guess since i don't have any better idea config_is_pci_bios() sounds like a
> good choice after all.
But we don't name config options like CONFIG_IS_PCI_BIOS, do we?
One should lowercase config option to minimize confusion, nothing more
if lowercased variant is OK.
Why it looks like a function call?
In fact one can even do
if (CONFIG_PCI_BIOS && !rt->signature) {
for boolean options.
--
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
