lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kconfig.h: use already defined macros for IS_REACHABLE() define
Hi Linus,


2016-06-07 1:36 GMT+09:00 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>:
> Side note:
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>>
>> -#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (config_enabled(option) || \
>> - (config_enabled(option##_MODULE) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
>> +#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (IS_BUILTIN(option) || \
>> + (IS_MODULE(option) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
>
> Is that "config_enabled(MODULE)" actually sensible?
>
> The whole "config_enabled()" thing is designed for config options. But
> "MODULE" is not a config option, it's per-file build option ("are we
> now building for a module" vs "are we building built-in code").

I thought of this, too.

Because config_enabled() is so useful,
maybe people tend to abuse it.


I see one case where config_enabled() is used
for a non-config macro.


#define __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, sec) \
__cond_export_sym(sym, sec, config_enabled(__KSYM_##sym))

Assuming we can do something with that,
ultimately I'd like to ban the use of
config_enabled() outside of include/linux/kconfig.h

I already started this work:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/mips/msg63759.html




> The code clearly works, but it smells a bit confusing to me. Talking
> about "config" of MODULE makes me think CONFIG_MODULES ("are modular
> builds enabled") rather than "am I currently building a module".
>
> I wonder if we should have something like
>
> #ifdef MODULE
> #define BUILDING_MODULES 1
> #else
> #define BUILDING_MODULES 0
> #endif
>
> and then using (IS_MODULE(option) && BUILDING_MODULES) to clarify the test.


MODULE is defined / undefined per file.

So, I think BUILDING_MODULE makes more sense than BUILDING_MODULES.



> Because when I first looked at the patch and didn't think about it any
> more, my initial reaction was "why is it checking whether modules are
> enabled - if IS_MODULE() is true, then _obviously_ modules are
> enabled?"
>
> But maybe that's just me.
>
> Linus



--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-07 00:01    [W:0.078 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site