Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:17:33 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] SCSI: split Kconfig menu into two |
| |
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.
>> @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.
>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
Otherwise, there would be more than a complaint or two per year.
Jeff
- 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/
| |