lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: on builds/randconfigs
    From
    On 13 January 2011 13:23, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:
    > On 12.1.2011 22:58, Len Brown wrote:
    >>>> These unusable config combinations should be prevented via Kconfig.
    >>>> That prevents users from selecting them, which otherwise adds to
    >>>> our workload and to theirs.  It also prevents false-positives
    >>>> during our useful randconfig testing.
    >>>
    >>> But it is kind of difficult to achieve IMhO.  For example, there are options
    >>> that are only SELECTed if something else is set, but randconfig doesn't seem
    >>> to care.
    >>
    >> Kconfig select needs to be fixed so that it is not possible to
    >> select something if that something's dependencies are not met.
    >
    > Right now, it issues a warning in such case. I think changing it to a
    > fatal error would be too premature, not long ago there were a couple of
    > annoying false positives.
    >
    > But from the rest of the thread, I conclude that you actually meant "not
    > possible to select something if that something's dependencies CANNOT be
    > met", i.e. automatically select dependencies if that is possible. That
    > was actually one of the goals of Vegard Nossum's GSoC poject last year,
    > but I haven't heard of any outcome yet. Vegard, is there something we
    > could use, be it code or mistakes we could learn from?

    Maybe I am wrong, but doesn't conf_write() actually take care of this
    when it does that sym_calc_value() for all the symbols? Or maybe
    that's the problem (i.e. that it doesn't).

    Current satconfig code can be changed to produce random configs (that
    nevertheless respect the user's choices) with a 1-line patch. But
    there are some other issues to be worked out, mainly that conf_write()
    doesn't respect all the choices that the SAT solver made. There could
    be several reasons for that: 1. satconfig doesn't deal with
    hex/int/string values and relies on conf_write() to fill in those
    (this is a plain old bug), 2. the translation into boolean logic is
    subtly wrong, perhaps a corner case or something like that, and/or 3.
    conf_write() does something wrong.

    I'll be happy to give a tour of the satconfig code if you or anybody
    else would like to start hacking on it.


    Vegard
    --
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-01-15 13:27    [W:0.024 / U:1.320 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site