Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:40:09 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |