On Saturday 15 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Saturday 15 September 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:44:59AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>> Stefan Richter wrote: > >>>> Adrian Bunk wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 04:11:45PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > >>>>>> Perfect is in the eye of the beholder. You would consequently have to > >>>>>> add such options into all menus which contain scsi low-level providers. > >>>>> Kconfig is a user interface, so perfect is what is best for the > >>>>> kconfig users. > >>>> Duplicate options with different names in different menus, but which all > >>>> do the same, --- is this the best for users? > >>> I recognize it's a rhetorical question :) The answer is of course "no". > >>> > >>> I hope the other participants of this thread register the severe > >>> disinclination of the maintainers to change this stuff, as this is a > >>> classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill[1]. > >>> > >>> For the -vast majority- of people configuring the kernel, this is not a > >>> problem. Kernel people are -expected- to know what they're doing, > >> I doubt your claim is true since the vast majority of kconfig users > >> are most likely not kernel developers. > > > > Yes, we shouldn't be needlessly raising the bar for power users. > > In this case, no bar is being "raised," for any user. It has already been raised by making SATA configuration counterintuitive (SATA has a separate Kconfig menu but depends on SCSI device drivers). > >> @Greg: > >> Do you have any numbers regarding how your "Linux Kernel in a Nutshell" > >> is selling? > >> Even download numbers? > >> > >>> especially when switching from one major subsystem to another. > >> It's not only about switching, the same problems awaits people when > >> configuring a kernel for their hardware the first time. > > > > *nods* > > > >>> Therefore, all this is IMO wasted effort and hot air. There are far more > >>> important issues to deal with. > >> Why don't we dump kconfig and write the .config by hand? ;-) > >> > >> More seriously: > >> Yes, there are many other important issues in the kernel. > >> But not fixing kconfig UI problems doesn't fix these issues faster. > > > > Agreed, and actually not fixing Kconfig UI problems will make the other > > issues being fixed *slower* (because they result in *increased* workload > > on developers' side). > > Irrelevant in this case, because there is no increased workload on the > developer's side. This thread alone serves as a perfect counter-example. ;) > >> I have seen people running into problems because some required > >> option wasn't set - in the simplest cases things like IDE without DMA > >> because a help text wasn't updated when more hardware support was added > >> to a driver. > > > > This is why nowadays IDE DMA support is automatically selected by IDE > > host drivers that need it - a big relief for everybody. > > Please don't take this any more off-topic than it already is. OK, I'll stop here and I'll just patiently wait till the SATA Kconfig issue comes up again on LKML (then I'll just smile and move on to the next post 8). > IDE DMA option was vastly different. The options in question here > affect whether or not you have a block device to use -- something that > is immediately obviously and corrected quickly. Indeed -- completely different situation. > >> You might not care about the kconfig users. > >> But other people do. > > > > ...and even if their attempts/solutions may not be proper yet they should > > not be discouraged to work on these problems... > > There is no problem, in this case. Fine with me then. The above was the most important part for me. > Otherwise, there would be more than a complaint or two per year. Thanks, Bart - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
