[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] MTD: fix DOC2000/2001/2001PLUS build error
    On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 13:28 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > Right. Because for MOST scsi drivers, it's obvious that they are SCSI to
    > the user.

    Really? Including the 'Scanner driver' card which arrived with my

    Is that like the 'RAID' card which is obviously RAID to the user, and
    not at all IDE?

    > But if you cannot see that this is something TOTALLY DIFFERENT from USB
    > storage, you're either being obtuse on purpose, or just incapable of
    > understanding humans.
    > We should NEVER have had "USB_STORAGE" depending on SCSI. It'sa BUG. It's
    > a _stupid_ bug.
    > We should have done what is sane:
    > - make CONFIG_SCSI (as a "support the SCSI layer" be invisible to users,
    > because it's not a user decision.
    > - have a CONFIG_SCSI_DRIVER question for "do you want to be asked about
    > SCSI drivers" (and which also does "select SCSI" for you)
    > - make USB_STORAGE _also_ do the "select SCSI" thing.

    Crap. What we should have done is fix the tools so that when you go to
    enable USB_STORAGE, it either prompts you or automatically turns on
    SCSI. I saw versions of our tcl xconfig a _decade_ ago which were
    capable of this, but we never cared enough to merge it -- although I
    _thought_ our new xconfig could do it these days.

    > In other words, you seem to be totally unable to grasp my argument. You
    > are arguing on TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TECHNICAL GROUNDS. That's not what the
    > Kconfig language is about. The Kconfig language and rules are about HUMAN
    > interaction.

    Well that's a shame, because any sane person would realise that most
    humans interact with kernel configuration only through a distribution.

    > So next time you say something about Kconfig, ask yourself: "What question
    > would a user want to see".
    > Any other question is pretty much totally irrelevant, and your "don't use
    > select" rule comes from your confusion that thinks that it's somehow about
    > machines and technical issues. It's not.

    No, really. Eric's Aunt Tillie can go screw herself backwards with a
    chainsaw. I care about _my_ use of configuration, and mostly my
    requirement is that I want to turn something _off_ either because it
    doesn't work, or I want it modular so I can hack on it, or because I'm
    trying to cut down kernel size and I don't want it.

    The proliferation of 'select' has made that a _complete_ pain in the
    wossname, apparently for the benefit of some hypothetical relative of a
    gun nut, who doesn't actually care because in general she doesn't
    configure her own kernel anyway.

    Russell is right -- using 'select' just turns the problem backwards,
    pessimising it for the _common_ case.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-02-05 22:43    [W:0.023 / U:19.932 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site