lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] 2.6.0-test5: serio config broken?
Hi,

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Tom Rini wrote:

> > You have to define what "inconsistency" means, right now the kconfig
> > design makes ambigous configurations impossible (provided that there are
> > no recursive dependencies, which kconfig warns about). I have no plans to
> > give up this property, as it keeps kconfig reasonably simple, it's already
> > complex enough as is.
>
> So long as it doesn't involve 'select', it won't let you be
> inconsistent, yes.

No, this is even true with the current select.

> How exactly are items that come in from a select
> evaluated right now?

'select' adds a reverse dependency to the selected option, e.g.

config FOO
select BAR if BAZ

BAR has now a reverse dependency of "FOO && BAZ" and the value of BAR is
calculated as "(user value && visibility) || reverse dependency"
(visibility is the dependencies of all BAR prompts). The details are in
symbol.c:sym_calc_value().
This allows to calculate the configuration in a single pass and as a side
effect avoids inconsistencies.

bye, Roman

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.053 / U:0.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site