On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:42:04 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:28:05 +0200 Michal Marek wrote: > >> > >>> Dne 26.7.2011 17:04, Randy Dunlap napsal(a): > >>> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:21:39 +0200 Michal Marek wrote: > >>> >> On 26.7.2011 15:01, Américo Wang wrote: > >>> >>> BTW, the name KCONFIG(CONFIG_NUMA) seems ugly. > >>> >> > >>> >> Suggest a better one :). The proposals so far: > >>> >> config_is_numa() (breaks grep) > >>> > > >>> > explain, please. > >>> > >>> If you grep for CONFIG_FOO usage, you'll miss this alternate syntax. > >>> > >> > >> Ack. > >> > >>> > >>> >> CONFIGURED(CONFIG_NUMA) > >>> >> ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) > >>> >> KCONFIG(CONFIG_NUMA) > >>> > > >>> > CONFIG(NUMA) || CONFIG(NUMA_BUILTIN) || CONFIG(NUMA_MODULE) > >>> > >>> same problem. > >> > >> Yes, I sorta got that after I sent the email. > >> > >> I guess I prefer your ENABLED() syntax then. > >> > > we need to be careful about namespace pollution/collision. > > > For the sake of having numbers: > > % git grep -w ENABLED . | wc -l > 116 > % git grep -w CONFIGURED . | wc -l > 11 > % git grep -w KCONFIG . | wc -l > 1 OK. Then I would go back to a predicate like the original patch had, e.g.: IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA) I think that using KCONFIG(CONFIG_NUMA) is klunky (a highly technical term). But Michal can do whatever he likes. --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- 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
