On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 8:19 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:13:36 -0400 > David Hunter <david.hunter.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > An assumption made in this script is that the config options do not need > > to be processed because they will simply be in the new config file. This > > assumption is incorrect. > > > > Process the config entries set to "y" because those config entries might > > have dependencies set to "m". If a config entry is set to "m" and is not > > loaded directly into the machine, the script will currently turn off > > that config entry; however, if that turned off config entry is a > > dependency for a "y" option. that means the config entry set to "y" > > will also be turned off later when the conf executive file is called. > > > > Here is a model of the problem (arrows show dependency): > > > > Original config file > > Config_1 (m) <-- Config_2 (y) > > > > Config_1 is not loaded in this example, so it is turned off. > > After scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl, but before scripts/kconfig/conf > > Config_1 (n) <-- Config_2 (y) > > > > After scripts/kconfig/conf > > Config_1 (n) <-- Config_2 (n) > > Hmm, can you show the example of this. My worry here is that there are a > lot of cases that have: > > Config_1 (m) <-- Config_2 (y) > > Where Config_2 is just some binary option to modify the module set by > Config_1. If we keep Config_1 because there's some 'y' that selects it, we > are going to keep a lot of unused modules around. Basically, there is no good way to distinguish in-module option (just CONFIG_BCACHEFS_SIX_OPTIMISTIC_SPIN=y, which is a property for CONFIG_BCACHEFS=m) from real dependency. > > > > It should also be noted that any module in the dependency chain will > > also be turned off, even if that module is loaded directly onto the > > computer. Here is an example: > > > > Original config file > > Config_1 (m) <-- Config_2 (y) <-- Config_3 (m) > > If Config_3 is used, then it should add Config_2 as a dependency. I guess > that's what this patch does. Agree, but I am not sure how to pick up only this case. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
