On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:47 PM Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On (24/02/29 12:36), Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > On (24/02/29 11:03), Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > > > > > +++ b/scripts/kconfig/Makefile > [..] > > > > > > > > + @echo '' > > > > > > > > + @echo 'Configuration environment variables:' > > > > > > > > + @echo ' KCONFIG_WERROR - Turn some Kconfig warnings into error conditions' > > > > > > > > + @echo ' KCONFIG_WARN_UNKNOWN_SYMBOLS - Make Kconfig warn about all unrecognized config symbols' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # =========================================================================== > > > > > > > > # object files used by all kconfig flavours > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 2.44.0.rc0.258.g7320e95886-goog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why only two, while Kconfig supports more env variables? > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. I wanted to add only those that we use (and familiar with) for > > > > > > starters. I'm not familiar with things like KCONFIG_PROBABILITY, for > > > > > > instance, and not sure how to document it (its Documentation/kbuild/kconfig.rst > > > > > > description is pretty lengthy). > > > > > > > > > > Masahiro, any opinion? > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not need this patch. > > > > > > Do you agree that putting kconfig env knobs into help makes sense > > > in general? Especially those add valuable sanity checks. > > > > I cannot accept the attitude: > > This is entirely wrong interpretation. > > > "I am interested only in these. I do not care about the rest, > > It's "I *do NOT know* what the rest do". I cannot document something > that I have no knowledge of, can I? So as a reasonable start I added > only those that I'm familiar with (and I have explicitly stated that > in previous emails), and I disagree with the "bad attitude" label. You were aware of: - several env variables are listed in the document - your patch would introduce a new "inconsistency" - somebody else would need to make efforts to solve it > > This should be all or nothing. > > > > I do not think all the env variables can be summarized > > to fit in help. > > So the rational for that was that people run "make help" and find > out about new build targets, for instance, but there is no way for > people to find out about new Kconfig features (and yes, we are talking > "new features" here) that are controlled by env variables. We need > to do something about it, don't you agree? Disagree. I maintain the entire Kconfig, not like you only caring about a particular feature. If you add only two in help, I have no idea about what it will look like in the end. I am not convinced that it will be in good shape. So, it is reasonable for me to reject it. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
