On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:17 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:15 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 22:10 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 14:38 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > The syntax may seem strange, > > > > > > It does! > > > > > > > but basically it just says "don't let me by y if RFKILL is m" > > > > > > ... but, besides that, I can be any value. So in effect it's shorthand > > > for > > > depends on RFKILL=y || RFKILL=m && m || RFKILL=n > > > > > > (which actually looks equally strange). Is that correct? > > > > I don't think it is, I believe that an expression like "RFKILL=y" has a > > bool type, and a tristate type value that depends on a bool type can > > still take the value m. > > Err, which is of course perfectly fine since if RFKILL is built in this > can be any value, and in the RFKILL=m case you force it to m by making > it depend on m directly. So yes, you're right. Whoops ... sorry about the talking to self ... I still think the original is easier to understand. After all, just depends on RFKILL is trivial to understand even with tristates. And knowing that RFKILL will provide no-op inlines when it is unconfigured, you add depends on !RFKILL for that case. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
