Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

[Stefan Richter]

Trent Piepho wrote:
> config A
> 	bool "A"
> 
> config B
> 	bool "B"
> 	depends on A
> 
> config C
> 	bool "C"
> 	select B
> 
> In this case, it's possible to turn C on and A off.  B will be on, even
> though it depends on A and A is off.
> 
> The kconfig docs say that "B..  depends on A" sets the maximum value of B
> to be that of A.  Since A=0, the max value of B is 0.
> 
> The kconfig docs also say that "C..  select B" sets the minimum value of B
> to be that of C.  Since C=2, the minimum value of B is 2.
> 
> So we have B>=2 and B<=0, which is obviously impossible.  Yet *config has
> no problem with this, and will set B=2 even the 'depends' means B must be
> 0.  It seems like "select" will override any other dependencies.

If that's so, then we have /a/ an incomplete definition of the Kconfig
language (what is supposed to happen if "select" attempts to set an
impossible value?) and /b/ a bug in the make xyzconfig programs (they
generate invalid configs).
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/