Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

[Stefan Richter]

Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On 5/20/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>         depends on !PLATFORM_X || HELPER_N_ON_PLATFORM_X
...
>> This is a synthetic example which might not have a real-world application.]
> 
> Well, it is not relevant / equivalent to any of the four symbols that caused the
> warnings that this thread is about, at least.

(Have I ever said that this concrete expression can be used in whatever
fix?)

...
> and as I said, this was totally *not* the problem being discussed /
> solved in this thread (and by that patch).

My point was not about that particular expression. My point was:

	I'm not advocating any specific fixes or pseudo-fixes.
	I'm advocating the notation of dependencies in the direction
	"A requires B".

When I said "The standard and maintainable way (for drivers at least)
is..." I didn't mean the example expression, I meant the *direction* in
which the example was stating dependencies.
-- 
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/