On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Chris Brandt wrote: > On Friday, June 22, 2018, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > So, why do we feel that XIP_KERNEL needs a warm safety blanket around > > > it? > > > > Because we simply try not to create invalid kernel configurations. > > XIP_KERNEL is not more special than other symbols in that respect. > > Then here's a question. > > To be clear, the discussion is around > > "Being able to build a kernel that will not boot" > > So which one of these is more important: build or boot? Obviously both. Most people are ultimately interested in kernels that can boot. > Meaning what if you can select multiple platforms in kconfig, but then > there is a .c file that does more sanity checking that then prevents the > full build using a #error. Sorry, that is still cheating around the actual issue, which is the inability to properly express mutually exclusive config symbols in kconfig. Nicolas -- 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
