2018-08-14 22:44 GMT+09:00 Dirk Gouders <dirk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dirk Gouders <dirk@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Currently, Kconfig does not report anything about the recursive
>>> dependency where 'imply' keywords are involved.
>>>
>>> [Test Code]
>>>
>>> config A
>>> bool "a"
>>>
>>> config B
>>> bool "b"
>>> imply A
>>> depends on A
>>
>> Hello Masahiro,
>>
>> obviously, it is hard to find a reason why one wants to use dependencies
>> like above but I also wonder how e.g. menuconfig handles this case:
>>
>> First, only "a" is visible, if I then select "a", "b" does not become
>> visible but when I then reset "a" to "n", "b" becomes visible. If I then
>> try to select "b", it becomes invisible...
>>
>> Perhaps it would be better to just error out instead of giving users the
>> impression, Kconfig thinks such questionable behavior is OK.
>>
>> Side note: perhaps, the documentation could be better when it comes to
>> recursive dependencies. The documentation says "select" and
>> "imply" can be used to specify lower limits whereas direct
>> dependencies specify upper limits for symbol values and with
>> this in mind, one might wonder why it is a problem to work
>> with both limits in a recursive way.
>>
>> Not very unlikely that it is just me who still has to
>> understand recursive dependencies or problems with reading
>> English text, though.
>>
>> What definitely seems to get void with your patches is item c) in
>> "Practical solutions to kconfig recursive issue" in
>> Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language:
>>
>> c) Consider the use of "imply" instead of "select"
>
> Just some more information that adds to me feeling unsure about the
> correct definition of recursive dependencies:
>
> With commit 29c434f367ea (kconfig: tests: test if recursive dependencies
> are detected) a test case similar to the example above was introduced,
> explicitely stating it is _no_ recursive dependency:
>
> +# depends on and imply
> +# This is not recursive dependency
> +
> +config E1
> + bool "E1"
> + depends on E2
> + imply E2
> +
> +config E2
> + bool "E2"
>
>
> Dirk
For some reason, I added this
without thinking why.
I believe this should be recursive dependency.
Thanks.
>>
>>> In the code above, Kconfig cannot calculate the symbol values correctly
>>> due to the circular dependency. For example, allyesconfig followed by
>>> syncconfig results in an odd behavior because CONFIG_B becomes visible
>>> in syncconfig.
>>>
>>> $ make allyesconfig
>>> scripts/kconfig/conf --allyesconfig Kconfig
>>> #
>>> # configuration written to .config
>>> #
>>> $ cat .config
>>> #
>>> # Automatically generated file; DO NOT EDIT.
>>> # Main menu
>>> #
>>> CONFIG_A=y
>>> $ make syncconfig
>>> scripts/kconfig/conf --syncconfig Kconfig
>>> *
>>> * Restart config...
>>> *
>>> *
>>> * Main menu
>>> *
>>> a (A) [Y/n/?] y
>>> b (B) [N/y/?] (NEW)
>>>
>>> To report this correctly, sym_check_expr_deps() should recurse to
>>> not only sym->rev_dep.expr but also sym->implied.expr .
>>>
>>> At this moment, sym_check_print_recursive() cannot distinguish
>>> 'select' and 'imply' since it does not know the precise context
>>> where the recursive dependency is hit. This will be solved by
>>> the next commit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 9 +++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
>>> index 4ec8b1f..7de7463a 100644
>>> --- a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
>>> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c
>>> @@ -1098,7 +1098,7 @@ static void sym_check_print_recursive(struct symbol *last_sym)
>>> sym->name ? sym->name : "<choice>",
>>> next_sym->name ? next_sym->name : "<choice>");
>>> } else {
>>> - fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d:\tsymbol %s is selected by %s\n",
>>> + fprintf(stderr, "%s:%d:\tsymbol %s is selected or implied by %s\n",
>>> prop->file->name, prop->lineno,
>>> sym->name ? sym->name : "<choice>",
>>> next_sym->name ? next_sym->name : "<choice>");
>>> @@ -1161,8 +1161,13 @@ static struct symbol *sym_check_sym_deps(struct symbol *sym)
>>> if (sym2)
>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> + sym2 = sym_check_expr_deps(sym->implied.expr);
>>> + if (sym2)
>>> + goto out;
>>> +
>>> for (prop = sym->prop; prop; prop = prop->next) {
>>> - if (prop->type == P_CHOICE || prop->type == P_SELECT)
>>> + if (prop->type == P_CHOICE || prop->type == P_SELECT ||
>>> + prop->type == P_IMPLY)
>>> continue;
>>> stack.prop = prop;
>>> sym2 = sym_check_expr_deps(prop->visible.expr);
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
