Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 May 2008 01:07:52 +0300 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: Ingo, no more kconfig patches |
| |
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:38:22PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 12:24:29AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:03:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote: > > >... > > > > > As Sam said it, fixing that Kconfig design bug would be "nice" - but > > > > > unfortunately the Kconfig subsystem is not actively developed > > > > > anymore. > > > > > > > > Roman is still active. > > > > > > great, does this mean we'll see fixes for select's misbehavior, along > > > the lines of Sam's suggestions? > > > > In the case of the problem here it would have turned one problem into > > another, and Roman's patch is the correct solution no matter whether > > you change the semantics of select or not. > > Hi Adrian > It would be nice to know what was wrong with my suggestion. > You have done your share of kconfig patches so you have a good grip > on the problems we face. > So any input on how we can improve kconfig so we can actually provide > what people often expects or requests or need would be nice. > > I have so far not done any hacking on the core of the backend of > kconfig but if I one day find more than one hour in row where I can do > some kernel stuff I may actually try it out. > And then it would be nice to have a sketch ready how to solve the issues. > > I would though request you to start a new mail thread for this and > include both linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org and Roman Zippel in the loop.
If you've sent a suggestion that included a description of the exact semantics you want to implement I must have missed it.
Can you send me a pointer or a description of the semantics? I'll then have a look.
> Sam
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
| |