lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/7] kconfig: enable CONFIG_IKCONFIG from streamline_config.pl
From
On 4/30/09, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
>
> Ingo Molnar suggested that the streamline_config.pl should enable
> CONFIG_IKCONFIG to keep the current config in the kernel.
> Then we can use scripts/extract-ikconfig to find the current
> modules.
>
> This patch changes streamline_config.pl to check if CONFIG_IKCONFIG
> is not set, and if it is not, it enables it to be a module.
>
> [ Impact: make current config options easier to find ]
>
> Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> ---
> scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl | 33
> +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl
> b/scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl
> index caac952..2334641 100644
> --- a/scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl
> +++ b/scripts/kconfig/streamline_config.pl
> @@ -256,18 +256,31 @@ my %setconfigs;
> # Finally, read the .config file and turn off any module enabled that
> # we could not find a reason to keep enabled.
> while(<CIN>) {
> - if (/^(CONFIG.*)=(m|y)/) {
> - if (defined($configs{$1})) {
> - $setconfigs{$1} = $2;
> - print;
> - } elsif ($2 eq "m") {
> - print "# $1 is not set\n";
> - } else {
> - print;
> - }
> +
> + if (/CONFIG_IKCONFIG/) {
> + if (/# CONFIG_IKCONFIG is not set/) {
> + # enable IKCONFIG at least as a module
> + print "CONFIG_IKCONFIG=m\n";
> + # don't ask about PROC
> + print "# CONFIG_IKCONFIG is not set\n";

I assume the second one should be CONFIG_IKCONFIG_PROC :-).

> + } else {
> + print;
> + }
> + next;
> + }
> +
> + if (/^(CONFIG.*)=(m|y)/) {
> + if (defined($configs{$1})) {
> + $setconfigs{$1} = $2;
> + print;
> + } elsif ($2 eq "m") {
> + print "# $1 is not set\n";
> } else {
> - print;
> + print;
> }

> + } else {
> + print;
> + }


Maybe it would be cleaner make the two "if" blocks the same; i.e. do
this instead:

+ next;
+ }
+
+ print;

> }
> close(CIN);
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-30 23:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans