On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:35 AM Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 9:11 PM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Your touch might be helpful here. CRYPTO_LIB_CHACHA20POLY1305 is a > > > tristate and depends on as well as selects other things that are > > > tristates. > > > > > > Meanwhile BIG_KEYS is a bool, which needs to select > > > CRYPTO_LIB_CHACHA20POLY1305. However, it gets antsy if the the symbol > > > its selecting has =m items in its hierarchy. > > > > > > Any suggestions? The ideal thing to happen would be that the select of > > > CRYPTO_LIB_CHACHA20POLY1305 in BIG_KEYS causes all of the descendants > > > to become =y too. > > > > I think that select is broken in its behaviour - it doesn't propagate the > > selection enforcement up the tree. You could try changing it to a depends on > > or you could put in a select for every dependency. > > I agree. > 'depends on' will be cleaner. That's fine, but also makes it more annoying for people to select big_keys, and I don't know how David feels in that regard. Seems like it'd be useful to have something that means "select X and all the things X needs to not be broken", though satisfiability problems like that can get really complicated quite fast.
