From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932291AbVLMOAF (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:00:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932308AbVLMOAF (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:00:05 -0500 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:47371 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932303AbVLMOAB (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:00:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:00:01 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: Simon Richter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, matthew@wil.cx, grundler@parisc-linux.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] defconfig's shouldn't set CONFIG_BROKEN=y Message-ID: <20051213140001.GG23349@stusta.de> References: <20051211185212.GQ23349@stusta.de> <20051211192109.GA22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051211193118.GR23349@stusta.de> <20051211194437.GB22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051213001028.GS23349@stusta.de> <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 02:34:04PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, Hi Simon, > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >>It's a problem introduced by your patch because the resulting defconfig > >>file becomes _wrong_ by your change, and other changes in the defconfig > >>are thereby hidden. > >>... > > >No, CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig file is a bug. > > Indeed, but that's not the point. A defconfig file should be the result > of running one of the various configuration targets; yours are > hand-patched. If you run the defconfig target, it will copy the config > file and run oldconfig, thus resulting in a different configuration file > (because options may now be gone and hence disabled) than what was in > the defconfig, and thus people may come to the wrong conclusion that if > a driver is enabled in a defconfig file, it will be built. defconfig files are virtually never a configuration for the kernel they are shipped with since they aren't updated every time some configuration option is changed. Consider a defconfig with CONFIG_BROKEN=n, and a driver that is enabled in this defconfig gets for some reason marked as broken in the Kconfig file - this will give exactly the same result as the one you describe. > Simon 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de (mailout.stusta.mhn.de [141.84.69.5]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B80B68898 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:00:01 +1100 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:00:01 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: Simon Richter Message-ID: <20051213140001.GG23349@stusta.de> References: <20051211185212.GQ23349@stusta.de> <20051211192109.GA22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051211193118.GR23349@stusta.de> <20051211194437.GB22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051213001028.GS23349@stusta.de> <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] defconfig's shouldn't set CONFIG_BROKEN=y List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 02:34:04PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, Hi Simon, > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >>It's a problem introduced by your patch because the resulting defconfig > >>file becomes _wrong_ by your change, and other changes in the defconfig > >>are thereby hidden. > >>... > > >No, CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig file is a bug. > > Indeed, but that's not the point. A defconfig file should be the result > of running one of the various configuration targets; yours are > hand-patched. If you run the defconfig target, it will copy the config > file and run oldconfig, thus resulting in a different configuration file > (because options may now be gone and hence disabled) than what was in > the defconfig, and thus people may come to the wrong conclusion that if > a driver is enabled in a defconfig file, it will be built. defconfig files are virtually never a configuration for the kernel they are shipped with since they aren't updated every time some configuration option is changed. Consider a defconfig with CONFIG_BROKEN=n, and a driver that is enabled in this defconfig gets for some reason marked as broken in the Kconfig file - this will give exactly the same result as the one you describe. > Simon 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5] helo=mailout.stusta.mhn.de) by canuck.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.54 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EmAhK-0002aG-Ut for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:00:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:00:01 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: Simon Richter Message-ID: <20051213140001.GG23349@stusta.de> References: <20051211185212.GQ23349@stusta.de> <20051211192109.GA22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051211193118.GR23349@stusta.de> <20051211194437.GB22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051213001028.GS23349@stusta.de> <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org, matthew@wil.cx, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, paulus@samba.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org, kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] defconfig's shouldn't set CONFIG_BROKEN=y List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 02:34:04PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, Hi Simon, > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >>It's a problem introduced by your patch because the resulting defconfig > >>file becomes _wrong_ by your change, and other changes in the defconfig > >>are thereby hidden. > >>... > > >No, CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig file is a bug. > > Indeed, but that's not the point. A defconfig file should be the result > of running one of the various configuration targets; yours are > hand-patched. If you run the defconfig target, it will copy the config > file and run oldconfig, thus resulting in a different configuration file > (because options may now be gone and hence disabled) than what was in > the defconfig, and thus people may come to the wrong conclusion that if > a driver is enabled in a defconfig file, it will be built. defconfig files are virtually never a configuration for the kernel they are shipped with since they aren't updated every time some configuration option is changed. Consider a defconfig with CONFIG_BROKEN=n, and a driver that is enabled in this defconfig gets for some reason marked as broken in the Kconfig file - this will give exactly the same result as the one you describe. > Simon 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:00:01 +0000 Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] defconfig's shouldn't set CONFIG_BROKEN=y Message-Id: <20051213140001.GG23349@stusta.de> List-Id: References: <20051211185212.GQ23349@stusta.de> <20051211192109.GA22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051211193118.GR23349@stusta.de> <20051211194437.GB22537@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051213001028.GS23349@stusta.de> <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> In-Reply-To: <439ECDCC.80707@hogyros.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Simon Richter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, matthew@wil.cx, grundler@parisc-linux.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org, paulus@samba.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, kkojima@rr.iij4u.or.jp, dwmw2@infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 02:34:04PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > Hi, Hi Simon, > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >>It's a problem introduced by your patch because the resulting defconfig > >>file becomes _wrong_ by your change, and other changes in the defconfig > >>are thereby hidden. > >>... > > >No, CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig file is a bug. > > Indeed, but that's not the point. A defconfig file should be the result > of running one of the various configuration targets; yours are > hand-patched. If you run the defconfig target, it will copy the config > file and run oldconfig, thus resulting in a different configuration file > (because options may now be gone and hence disabled) than what was in > the defconfig, and thus people may come to the wrong conclusion that if > a driver is enabled in a defconfig file, it will be built. defconfig files are virtually never a configuration for the kernel they are shipped with since they aren't updated every time some configuration option is changed. Consider a defconfig with CONFIG_BROKEN=n, and a driver that is enabled in this defconfig gets for some reason marked as broken in the Kconfig file - this will give exactly the same result as the one you describe. > Simon 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