From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:41:29 +1000 > On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:40:11 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:30:32 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Here's what I am applying as a merge fixup to the net tree today so that >> > my ppc64_defconfig builds actually build more or less the same set of >> > drivers as before this rearrangement. >> >> And this today: > > And this: I'm starting to get uncomfortable with this whole situation, and I feel more and more that these new kconfig guards are not tenable. Changing defconfig files might fix the "automated test boot with defconfig" case but it won't fix the case of someone trying to automate a build and boot using a different, existing, config file. It ought to work too, and I do know people really do this. And just the fact that we would have to merge all of these defconfig changes through the networking tree is evidence of how it's really not reasonable to be doing things this way. Jeff, I think we need to revert the dependencies back to what they were before the drivers/net moves. Could you prepare a patch which does that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
