Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:02:43 -0700 (PDT) | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] libata: fix broken Kconfig setup |
| |
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Monday 17 October 2005 18:25, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Btw, if you want to have the _question_ always be y/n only, that's easy > > > > enough to do, just make that one do > > > > > > > > config SATA_MENU > > > > bool "Want to see SATA drivers" > > > > depends on SCSI != n > > > > > > > > config SCSI_SATA > > > > tristate > > > > depends on SCSI && SATA_MENU > > > > default y > > > > > > > > and now you have a totally sensible setup, where the low-level drivers > > > > can depend on something sane. > > > > I don't think it _buys_ you anything, but hey, at least it's logical. > > > > > > That's a reasonable solution. I think it does buy you reduced user > > > confusion. > > > > The thing that worries me is that while the question may appear a bit more > > straightforward that way, I actually think it makes the end result _less_ > > so. > > > > Let's say that I'm a clueless user, and I just don't realize that SATA > > depends on SCSI. After all, to a user, SATA sure as hell isn't SCSI, > > that's just an implementation detail inside the kernel. > > > > So I've happened to say "m" to SCSI (for whatever reason - don't ask why > > users do strange things, but maybe I realize that USB storage needs it), > > and now I see the question for SATA. And I say "y". > > > > And then I wonder why I can only select my sata drivers as modules. I > > didn't ask for SATA as a module, but they refuse to say "m". > > > > Now, with SCSI_SATA as a straight M/n choice (or whatever), if I had SCSI > > as a module, at least I'll see at SATA selection time that I can only > > compile SATA drivers as modules. I might wonder at that time why, but I > > think it's less confusing there (and we could even mention it in the > > help-text). > > > [snip] > > Pretty much this exact thing happened to me. SATA=y when SCSI=y, then I > selected my mainboard's SATA chipset (NFORCE=y), then a few kernels later I > went back to set SCSI=m (I can't remember the rationale, something to do with > udev and me thinking I didn't need to compile SCSI into the kernel). > > Of course, without asking me, this changed my SATA chipset driver to a module, > and the resulting kernel wouldn't get to init (because I was attempting to > boot from a disc on the SATA controller). > > This particular issue is perhaps more difficult to resolve, but I think this > illustrates that a conceptual link between SCSI and SATA is a bad idea at the > KConfig level (even if, within the kernel, SATA depends on parts of SCSI).
I agree and it seems that Jeff expects to change that. I think that what I said (or I guess I "asked") here makes sense: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112839490116475&w=2
-- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |