On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 10:57 -0400, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > > FWIW, this is the broken behavior I have been pointing all along... > > If kconfig hard failed on such case, we would not need such Kbuild > black-magic. > > From my point of view, if environment override there should be, it > should behave the same as the all.config logic and hard fail when an > override has not been met. > Code wise, this would translate as backend code path being the same. The patches I have so far *do* behave the same as the all.config logic, because the back end code *is* fairly much the same. I was looking at the all.config logic when I wrote the patch to kconfig. It *doesn't* currently hard fail. But I'm more than happy to make it do so. I think you're right; that makes most sense. I've just been looking at ways to allow real build targets to proceed *only* if any config options specified on the command line *did* get honoured by kconfig. But that gets a bit messy since you also want to automatically trigger an 'oldconfig' run if anything was specified on the command line. So you end up with one automatic oldconfig run in a sub-make, then the *second* time around it when the supposedly identical submake is invoked for the real build target, it would have to behave differently. I'm much happier with automatically triggering a reconfig if options are given on the command line, and a hard fail if they can't be honoured. That means that 'make CONFIG_FOO=y bzImage' will work 'properly', which IMO is either to do as it was asked, or fail. -- dwmw2 -- 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
