Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 May 2011 13:21:27 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] kconfig: autogenerated config_is_xxx macro | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> |
| |
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > >> On 10:30 Fri 13 May , Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > >> > * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote: >> > >> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_BIOS >> > > - if (!rt->signature) { >> > > + if (config_is_pci_bios() && !rt->signature) { >> > >> > Makes sense - but please name it in a more obvious way, such as: >> > >> > pci_bios_enabled() >> the idea to generate the macro via Kconfig > > Okay, and there we are stuck with whatever the Kconfig name is. (we could > rename that but not needed really) > > Why not the canonical config_pci_bios() variant? It's the shortest one to > write. The '_is' looks pretty superfluous to me. > > Hm, i guess it could be mixed up with a function that configures the pci_bios. > > I guess since i don't have any better idea config_is_pci_bios() sounds like a > good choice after all.
But we don't name config options like CONFIG_IS_PCI_BIOS, do we? One should lowercase config option to minimize confusion, nothing more if lowercased variant is OK.
Why it looks like a function call?
In fact one can even do
if (CONFIG_PCI_BIOS && !rt->signature) {
for boolean options. -- 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/
| |