Dne 23.4.2013 18:34, Yann E. MORIN napsal(a):
> Michal, All,
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:44:58AM +0200, Michal Marek wrote:
>> On 22.4.2013 23:31, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
>>> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/confdata.c b/scripts/kconfig/confdata.c
>>> index 13ddf11..8d8d853 100644
>>> --- a/scripts/kconfig/confdata.c
>>> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/confdata.c
>>> @@ -1106,7 +1106,16 @@ static void set_all_choice_values(struct symbol *csym)
>>> void conf_set_all_new_symbols(enum conf_def_mode mode)
>>> {
>>> struct symbol *sym, *csym;
>>> - int i, cnt;
>>> + int i, cnt, prob = 50;
>>> +
>> [...]
>>> case def_random:
>>> - cnt = sym_get_type(sym) == S_TRISTATE ? 3 : 2;
>>> - sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri = (tristate)(rand() % cnt);
>>> + cnt = (rand() % 100) - (100 - prob);
>>> + if (cnt < 0)
>>> + sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri = no;
>>> + else
>>> + if ((sym_get_type(sym) == S_TRISTATE)
>>> + && (cnt > prob/2))
>>> + sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri = mod;
>>> + else
>>> + sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri = yes;
>>
>> Previously, the distribution was 50%-50% for boolean options and
>> 33%-33%-33% for tristate options. Now the default for tristate options
>> changed to 50%-25%-25% (no-mod-yes). Wouldn't it make more sense to have
>> a special case for KCONFIG_PROBABILITY not set, that would use the same
>> distribution as before. I.e.
>>
>> if (prob == -1) {
>> cnt = sym_get_type(sym) == S_TRISTATE ? 3 : 2;
>> sym->def[S_DEF_USER].tri = (tristate)(rand() % cnt);
>> } else {
>> /* new math */
>> }
>
> OK, what about this proposal, instead:
> KCONFIG_PROBABILITY y:n split y:m:n split Notes
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> unset or empty 50 : 50 33 : 33 : 34 [1]
> N N : 100-N N/2 : N/2 : 100-N [2]
> N:M N+M : 100-(N+M) N : M : 100-(N+M) [3]
> N:M:L N : 100-N M : L : 100-(M+L) [4]
>
> [1] current behaviour
> [2] the curent patch's behaviour
> [3] boolean's Y probability is tristate's Y plus tristate's M probabilities
> [4] all probabilities explicitly stated
>
> I have a prototype for this I need to clean up. If that's OK for you, I'll
> submit that; if not, I'll use your suggestion.
As long as the default behavior does not change (1/3 vs. 34% is fine
:)), then I am fine with any semantics of $KCONFIG_PROBABILITY.
Michal
--
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
