On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
>> index cca9663be5dd..02eb8b10a83c 100644
>> --- a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
>> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
>> @@ -403,9 +403,10 @@ void sym_calc_value(struct symbol *sym)
>> if (!sym_is_choice(sym)) {
>> prop = sym_get_default_prop(sym);
>> if (prop) {
>> - sym->flags |= SYMBOL_WRITE;
>> newval.tri = EXPR_AND(expr_calc_value(prop->expr),
>> prop->visible.tri);
>> + if (newval.tri != no)
>> + sym->flags |= SYMBOL_WRITE;
>> }
>> if (sym->implied.tri != no) {
>> sym->flags |= SYMBOL_WRITE;
>> --
>> 2.14.1
>>
>
> This stuff gets pretty obscure, so please tell me if you can think of
> any practical benefits to remembering an n default as a user selection
> for non-visible symbols (which is all '# CONFIG_FOO is not set' does
> in practice). I couldn't think of anything.
I had to read the patch description twice to see that you are only
changing the invisible symbols. This seems fine for any automated
interaction with the .config file.
The only possible downside I can think of is that it's sometimes easier
to see the '# CONFIG_FOO is unset' when using 'grep CONFIG_FOO
.config' to see if something was set. On the other hand, I might
edit .config and remove that line today, and then be surprised that
'make oldconfig' doesn't ask me about it again (since it's invisible).
So no, I don't see a strong reason against it either.
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
