[2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.

The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
trivial.

Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

---

This patch was already sent on:
- 6 Jan 2006
- 13 Dec 2005

--- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig.old	2005-12-13 18:48:40.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig	2005-12-13 18:48:52.000000000 +0100
@@ -31,19 +31,8 @@
 	  you say Y here, you will be offered the choice of using features or
 	  drivers that are currently considered to be in the alpha-test phase.
 
-config CLEAN_COMPILE
-	bool "Select only drivers expected to compile cleanly" if EXPERIMENTAL
-	default y
-	help
-	  Select this option if you don't even want to see the option
-	  to configure known-broken drivers.
-
-	  If unsure, say Y
-
 config BROKEN
 	bool
-	depends on !CLEAN_COMPILE
-	default y
 
 config BROKEN_ON_SMP
 	bool

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:39:34PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:11:17PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> >>On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>...
> >>>>- Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
> >>>>the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
> >>>>if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
> >>>>to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.
> >>>
> >>>Our menus are mostly made for _users_.
> >>
> >>true, but do you really want to raise the barrier for users to test
> >>things? or do you intend to have a bunch of patches that remove BROKEN for
> >>a config option so that people can test them during the -rc and then add
> >>it back for them all before a real release?
> >
> >If an option is untested it's EXPERIMENTAL.
> >If it's broken it's BROKEN.
> >
> >If an option is marked as BROKEN but works fine for you please send a
> >bug report.
> 
> my point is that if someone sends a patch that they think will fix 
> something, nobody will be able to test that patch unless they are willing 
> to edit their kconfig file unless the patch also marks it unbroken before 
> anyone else has tested it.

Kernel developers usually aren't _that_ dumb:
The patch that fixes the driver simply removes the dependency on BROKEN.

> David Lang

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[David Lang]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> 
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:11:17PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> ...
>>>> - Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
>>>> the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
>>>> if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
>>>> to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.
>>>
>>> Our menus are mostly made for _users_.
>>
>> true, but do you really want to raise the barrier for users to test
>> things? or do you intend to have a bunch of patches that remove BROKEN for
>> a config option so that people can test them during the -rc and then add
>> it back for them all before a real release?
>
> If an option is untested it's EXPERIMENTAL.
> If it's broken it's BROKEN.
>
> If an option is marked as BROKEN but works fine for you please send a
> bug report.

my point is that if someone sends a patch that they think will fix 
something, nobody will be able to test that patch unless they are willing 
to edit their kconfig file unless the patch also marks it unbroken before 
anyone else has tested it.

David Lang

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:11:17PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> >>- Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
> >>the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
> >>if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
> >>to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.
> >
> >Our menus are mostly made for _users_.
> 
> true, but do you really want to raise the barrier for users to test 
> things? or do you intend to have a bunch of patches that remove BROKEN for 
> a config option so that people can test them during the -rc and then add 
> it back for them all before a real release?

If an option is untested it's EXPERIMENTAL.
If it's broken it's BROKEN.

If an option is marked as BROKEN but works fine for you please send a 
bug report.

> >The more common are users accidentially enabling CONFIG_BROKEN and then
> >wondering why a driver isn't compiling or working.
> >
> >And in my experience, when searching whether hardware might be supported
> >a grep through the kernel sources brings you more than reading often
> >outdated Kconfig help texts. Besides this, a BROKEN driver usually has
> >the same value for the user as a non-existing driver.
> 
> it depends on how broken something really is, in some cases you are 
> correct, in others you aren't.

It's so broken that a devloper said EXPERIMENTAL is not enough, users 
should really not see it. Often the developer additionall added an 
#error to the driver.

>...
> >If you know the driver is marked as BROKEN and if you want to use it
> >despite this, editing the Kconfig file is trivial.
> >
> >Unless you _really_ know what you are doing, no driver for your hard
> >disk is better than a broken driver.
> 
> for your hard drive you are probably right, but does this always apply for 
> your network card? or your sound card?
>...

It might be marked as BROKEN because it crashes the kernel.

But well, the common case is that the code marked as BROKEN simply 
doesn't compile.

> David Lang

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> >
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > trivial.
> >
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
> >
> I disagree (slightly) with this patch for a few reasons:
> 
> - It's very convenient to be able to enable it through menuconfig.
> 
> - Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
> the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
> if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
> to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.

It might be nice if you could enable "show BROKEN" options, and have them 
appear in the list without being able to select them...

> - Some things marked BROKEN may not be 100% broken and may actually
> work for some specific things, so if you know that it works for your
> use, then being able to easily enable BROKEN and then whatever it is
> you need is nice.

But then you can accidentally enable something else that really is broken 
in the way you're going to use it. What you really want is to be able to 
override the BROKEN marking on individual options, not to override all 
BROKEN markings. Perhaps there should be a way to enable an option with 
unmet dependencies, such that the dependencies are treated as enabled for 
the purpose of building, but not for the purpose of making options that 
also depend on the same things available. This would also be nice for the 
case where you don't generally want EXPERIMENTAL drivers, but you do want 
a particular one that you've personally found to be stable.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[David Lang]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
>>> Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
>>>
>>> The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
>>> fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
>>> trivial.
>>>
>>> Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>>>
>> I disagree (slightly) with this patch for a few reasons:
>>
>> - It's very convenient to be able to enable it through menuconfig.
>
> And when do you really need it?

at various times over the years I've needed it to enable partially working 
drivers for several things.

>> - Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
>> the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
>> if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
>> to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.
>
> Our menus are mostly made for _users_.

true, but do you really want to raise the barrier for users to test 
things? or do you intend to have a bunch of patches that remove BROKEN for 
a config option so that people can test them during the -rc and then add 
it back for them all before a real release?

> The more common are users accidentially enabling CONFIG_BROKEN and then
> wondering why a driver isn't compiling or working.
>
> And in my experience, when searching whether hardware might be supported
> a grep through the kernel sources brings you more than reading often
> outdated Kconfig help texts. Besides this, a BROKEN driver usually has
> the same value for the user as a non-existing driver.

it depends on how broken something really is, in some cases you are 
correct, in others you aren't.

>> - Some things marked BROKEN may not be 100% broken and may actually
>> work for some specific things, so if you know that it works for your
>> use, then being able to easily enable BROKEN and then whatever it is
>> you need is nice.
>
> In reality, people accidentially turn on CONFIG_BROKEN, enable a broken
> driver, and wonder why it isn't working as expected.

so have CONFIG_BROKEN taint the kernel if you want to identify it in 
bugreports.

> If you know the driver is marked as BROKEN and if you want to use it
> despite this, editing the Kconfig file is trivial.
>
> Unless you _really_ know what you are doing, no driver for your hard
> disk is better than a broken driver.

for your hard drive you are probably right, but does this always apply for 
your network card? or your sound card?

>> Perhaps just move it below the Kernel Hacking menu instead, users
>> don't go there (or if they do they damn well should know what they are
>> doing).
>> ...
>
> Enabling MAGIC_SYSRQ for being able to sync the disks for crashed
> machines...

this is a reasonable option, although currently nothing in Kernel Hacking 
enables items in other menus. it's convienient that when useing menuconfig 
and working down from the top you first hit the selections that enable 
things in all the other menus (experimental and broken).

David Lang

-- 
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
  -- C.A.R. Hoare

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Jan Engelhardt]

>> And when do you really need it?
>>
>Hmm, when I'm looking for broken stuff to fix ;)
>I guess you are right, ordinary users don't need it.. Ok, count me in
>as supporting this move.
>
I go with it.

I had CONFIG_BROKEN on, which 'cost' me one post to LKML to find out that
CONFIG_MTD_AMD... does rightfully not compile. It (CONFIG_BROKEN/CLEAN_COMPILE)
just confuses.


Jan Engelhardt
-- 

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:39:30AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> 
> > On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > > On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > > > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > > > >
> > > > > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > > > > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > > > > trivial.
> > > > >
> > > > > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
> > > > >
> > > > I disagree (slightly) with this patch for a few reasons:
> > > >
> > > > - It's very convenient to be able to enable it through menuconfig.
> > >
> > > And when do you really need it?
> > >
> > Hmm, when I'm looking for broken stuff to fix ;)
> > I guess you are right, ordinary users don't need it.. Ok, count me in
> > as supporting this move.
> 
> I'm having a little trouble determining why it matters.
> 
> Are you trying to cut down on lkml bug reports or just make
> it harder on everyone?

I'm trying to remove a small trap for users.

> ~Randy

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Jesper Juhl wrote:

> On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > > >
> > > > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > > > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > > > trivial.
> > > >
> > > > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
> > > >
> > > I disagree (slightly) with this patch for a few reasons:
> > >
> > > - It's very convenient to be able to enable it through menuconfig.
> >
> > And when do you really need it?
> >
> Hmm, when I'm looking for broken stuff to fix ;)
> I guess you are right, ordinary users don't need it.. Ok, count me in
> as supporting this move.

I'm having a little trouble determining why it matters.

Are you trying to cut down on lkml bug reports or just make
it harder on everyone?

-- 
~Randy

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Jesper Juhl]

On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > >
> > > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > > trivial.
> > >
> > > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
> > >
> > I disagree (slightly) with this patch for a few reasons:
> >
> > - It's very convenient to be able to enable it through menuconfig.
>
> And when do you really need it?
>
Hmm, when I'm looking for broken stuff to fix ;)
I guess you are right, ordinary users don't need it.. Ok, count me in
as supporting this move.


--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> >
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > trivial.
> >
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
> >
> I disagree (slightly) with this patch for a few reasons:
> 
> - It's very convenient to be able to enable it through menuconfig.

And when do you really need it?

> - Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
> the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
> if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
> to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.

Our menus are mostly made for _users_.

The more common are users accidentially enabling CONFIG_BROKEN and then 
wondering why a driver isn't compiling or working.

And in my experience, when searching whether hardware might be supported 
a grep through the kernel sources brings you more than reading often 
outdated Kconfig help texts. Besides this, a BROKEN driver usually has 
the same value for the user as a non-existing driver.

> - Some things marked BROKEN may not be 100% broken and may actually
> work for some specific things, so if you know that it works for your
> use, then being able to easily enable BROKEN and then whatever it is
> you need is nice.

In reality, people accidentially turn on CONFIG_BROKEN, enable a broken 
driver, and wonder why it isn't working as expected.

If you know the driver is marked as BROKEN and if you want to use it 
despite this, editing the Kconfig file is trivial.

Unless you _really_ know what you are doing, no driver for your hard 
disk is better than a broken driver.

> Perhaps just move it below the Kernel Hacking menu instead, users
> don't go there (or if they do they damn well should know what they are
> doing).
>...

Enabling MAGIC_SYSRQ for being able to sync the disks for crashed 
machines...

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 05:41:28PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:35:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > 
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> > trivial.
> > 
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
> 
> NACK.  MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS still hasn't been fixed and must be fixed
> _before_ this patch can go in.

The MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS patch is also part of the batch of patches I'm 
currently resending (it's coming in a few minutes).

@Andrew:
I agree with Russell on the ordering of the two patches.

> Russell King

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Jesper Juhl]

On 1/6/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
>
> The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> trivial.
>
> Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>
I disagree (slightly) with this patch for a few reasons:

- It's very convenient to be able to enable it through menuconfig.

- Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.

- Some things marked BROKEN may not be 100% broken and may actually
work for some specific things, so if you know that it works for your
use, then being able to easily enable BROKEN and then whatever it is
you need is nice.

Perhaps just move it below the Kernel Hacking menu instead, users
don't go there (or if they do they damn well should know what they are
doing).

Ohh well, if it gets removed I won't really cry, but I do think it's
convenient, and if moved into Kernel Hacking it should be mostly out
of harms (read: users) way.


Just my 0.02euro


--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Russell King]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:35:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> 
> The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> trivial.
> 
> Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.

NACK.  MTD_OBSOLETE_CHIPS still hasn't been fixed and must be fixed
_before_ this patch can go in.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

[2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.

The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
trivial.

Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

---

This patch was already sent on:
- 13 Dec 2005

--- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig.old	2005-12-13 18:48:40.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig	2005-12-13 18:48:52.000000000 +0100
@@ -31,19 +31,8 @@
 	  you say Y here, you will be offered the choice of using features or
 	  drivers that are currently considered to be in the alpha-test phase.
 
-config CLEAN_COMPILE
-	bool "Select only drivers expected to compile cleanly" if EXPERIMENTAL
-	default y
-	help
-	  Select this option if you don't even want to see the option
-	  to configure known-broken drivers.
-
-	  If unsure, say Y
-
 config BROKEN
 	bool
-	depends on !CLEAN_COMPILE
-	default y
 
 config BROKEN_ON_SMP
 	bool

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Russell King]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:19:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:06PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
> > review at all.
> > 
> > So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
> > of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
> > which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.
> > 
> > You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
> > a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
> > disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
> > far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
> > to the kernel strives for.
> > 
> > If not, what's the point of the original change?
> 
> The point is that I haven't yet heard any good reason for 
> CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig.

I'm sorry, I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.  I
have said everything that needs to be said, and made my position on
this patch crystal clear.

The patch to the ARM configuration files is nacked as it stands.
Please go back and rework it along the guidelines I've pointed out
several times in this thread and maybe then it becomes acceptable.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Russell King]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:19:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:06PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
> > review at all.
> > 
> > So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
> > of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
> > which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.
> > 
> > You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
> > a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
> > disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
> > far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
> > to the kernel strives for.
> > 
> > If not, what's the point of the original change?
> 
> The point is that I haven't yet heard any good reason for 
> CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig.

I'm sorry, I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.  I
have said everything that needs to be said, and made my position on
this patch crystal clear.

The patch to the ARM configuration files is nacked as it stands.
Please go back and rework it along the guidelines I've pointed out
several times in this thread and maybe then it becomes acceptable.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Russell King]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:19:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:06PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
> > review at all.
> > 
> > So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
> > of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
> > which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.
> > 
> > You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
> > a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
> > disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
> > far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
> > to the kernel strives for.
> > 
> > If not, what's the point of the original change?
> 
> The point is that I haven't yet heard any good reason for 
> CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig.

I'm sorry, I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.  I
have said everything that needs to be said, and made my position on
this patch crystal clear.

The patch to the ARM configuration files is nacked as it stands.
Please go back and rework it along the guidelines I've pointed out
several times in this thread and maybe then it becomes acceptable.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:06PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> > > and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> > > for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> > > "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> > > them as such.
> > > 
> > > If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> > > CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.
> > 
> > if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
> > CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.
> 
> Maybe they're only broken for a small subset of platforms, and someone
> added a BROKEN without properly considering whether it should be global
> or not?
> 
> I don't disagree with the overall notion that CONFIG_BROKEN should not
> be set _where_ _possible_.  However, if it needs to be set to get the
> required options, then that's what needs to happen until such time that
> the above is corrected.

Where is the bug report from the person who set CONFIG_BROKEN=y in the 
collie defconfig that the BROKEN dependency on MTD_SHARP was wrong?

> However - and now to the main bug bear - how can we tell what is really
> broken if you _just_ change the default configuration file settings for
> CONFIG_BROKEN?  What happens is that, on review, we see a simple change.
> We'd assume that it has little impact, and we accept that change.
> 
> Maybe a month or two down the line, someone whines that their platform
> doesn't work for some reason, and it's tracked down to this and the
> resulting fallout from disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.

The whining is the bug report the person who set the CONFIG_BROKEN=y in 
the defconfig didn't send.

And things would have been even worse if I had sent a patch erasing 
MTD_SHARP from the kernel because code "both marked as obsolete and 
BROKEN can clearly be removed" and the code was therefore completely 
removed two months before the first person whined?

> That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
> review at all.
> 
> So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
> of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
> which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.
> 
> You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
> a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
> disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
> far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
> to the kernel strives for.
> 
> If not, what's the point of the original change?

The point is that I haven't yet heard any good reason for 
CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig.

No, it's not a good reason if someone used it as a workaround instead of 
sending a bug report that would result in a fixing of the wrong BROKEN 
dependency.

Where is the bug report of the person setting CONFIG_BROKEN=y in the 
collie defconfig that the MTD_SHARP dependency on BROKEN was wrong?

> Russell King

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:06PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> > > and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> > > for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> > > "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> > > them as such.
> > > 
> > > If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> > > CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.
> > 
> > if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
> > CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.
> 
> Maybe they're only broken for a small subset of platforms, and someone
> added a BROKEN without properly considering whether it should be global
> or not?
> 
> I don't disagree with the overall notion that CONFIG_BROKEN should not
> be set _where_ _possible_.  However, if it needs to be set to get the
> required options, then that's what needs to happen until such time that
> the above is corrected.

Where is the bug report from the person who set CONFIG_BROKEN=y in the 
collie defconfig that the BROKEN dependency on MTD_SHARP was wrong?

> However - and now to the main bug bear - how can we tell what is really
> broken if you _just_ change the default configuration file settings for
> CONFIG_BROKEN?  What happens is that, on review, we see a simple change.
> We'd assume that it has little impact, and we accept that change.
> 
> Maybe a month or two down the line, someone whines that their platform
> doesn't work for some reason, and it's tracked down to this and the
> resulting fallout from disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.

The whining is the bug report the person who set the CONFIG_BROKEN=y in 
the defconfig didn't send.

And things would have been even worse if I had sent a patch erasing 
MTD_SHARP from the kernel because code "both marked as obsolete and 
BROKEN can clearly be removed" and the code was therefore completely 
removed two months before the first person whined?

> That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
> review at all.
> 
> So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
> of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
> which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.
> 
> You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
> a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
> disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
> far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
> to the kernel strives for.
> 
> If not, what's the point of the original change?

The point is that I haven't yet heard any good reason for 
CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig.

No, it's not a good reason if someone used it as a workaround instead of 
sending a bug report that would result in a fixing of the wrong BROKEN 
dependency.

Where is the bug report of the person setting CONFIG_BROKEN=y in the 
collie defconfig that the MTD_SHARP dependency on BROKEN was wrong?

> Russell King

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:01:06PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> > > and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> > > for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> > > "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> > > them as such.
> > > 
> > > If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> > > CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.
> > 
> > if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
> > CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.
> 
> Maybe they're only broken for a small subset of platforms, and someone
> added a BROKEN without properly considering whether it should be global
> or not?
> 
> I don't disagree with the overall notion that CONFIG_BROKEN should not
> be set _where_ _possible_.  However, if it needs to be set to get the
> required options, then that's what needs to happen until such time that
> the above is corrected.

Where is the bug report from the person who set CONFIG_BROKEN=y in the 
collie defconfig that the BROKEN dependency on MTD_SHARP was wrong?

> However - and now to the main bug bear - how can we tell what is really
> broken if you _just_ change the default configuration file settings for
> CONFIG_BROKEN?  What happens is that, on review, we see a simple change.
> We'd assume that it has little impact, and we accept that change.
> 
> Maybe a month or two down the line, someone whines that their platform
> doesn't work for some reason, and it's tracked down to this and the
> resulting fallout from disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.

The whining is the bug report the person who set the CONFIG_BROKEN=y in 
the defconfig didn't send.

And things would have been even worse if I had sent a patch erasing 
MTD_SHARP from the kernel because code "both marked as obsolete and 
BROKEN can clearly be removed" and the code was therefore completely 
removed two months before the first person whined?

> That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
> review at all.
> 
> So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
> of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
> which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.
> 
> You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
> a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
> disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
> far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
> to the kernel strives for.
> 
> If not, what's the point of the original change?

The point is that I haven't yet heard any good reason for 
CONFIG_BROKEN=y in a defconfig.

No, it's not a good reason if someone used it as a workaround instead of 
sending a bug report that would result in a fixing of the wrong BROKEN 
dependency.

Where is the bug report of the person setting CONFIG_BROKEN=y in the 
collie defconfig that the MTD_SHARP dependency on BROKEN was wrong?

> Russell King

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Russell King]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> > and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> > for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> > "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> > them as such.
> > 
> > If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> > CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.
> 
> if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
> CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.

Maybe they're only broken for a small subset of platforms, and someone
added a BROKEN without properly considering whether it should be global
or not?

I don't disagree with the overall notion that CONFIG_BROKEN should not
be set _where_ _possible_.  However, if it needs to be set to get the
required options, then that's what needs to happen until such time that
the above is corrected.

However - and now to the main bug bear - how can we tell what is really
broken if you _just_ change the default configuration file settings for
CONFIG_BROKEN?  What happens is that, on review, we see a simple change.
We'd assume that it has little impact, and we accept that change.

Maybe a month or two down the line, someone whines that their platform
doesn't work for some reason, and it's tracked down to this and the
resulting fallout from disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.

That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
review at all.

So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.

You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
to the kernel strives for.

If not, what's the point of the original change?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Russell King]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> > and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> > for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> > "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> > them as such.
> > 
> > If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> > CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.
> 
> if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
> CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.

Maybe they're only broken for a small subset of platforms, and someone
added a BROKEN without properly considering whether it should be global
or not?

I don't disagree with the overall notion that CONFIG_BROKEN should not
be set _where_ _possible_.  However, if it needs to be set to get the
required options, then that's what needs to happen until such time that
the above is corrected.

However - and now to the main bug bear - how can we tell what is really
broken if you _just_ change the default configuration file settings for
CONFIG_BROKEN?  What happens is that, on review, we see a simple change.
We'd assume that it has little impact, and we accept that change.

Maybe a month or two down the line, someone whines that their platform
doesn't work for some reason, and it's tracked down to this and the
resulting fallout from disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.

That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
review at all.

So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.

You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
to the kernel strives for.

If not, what's the point of the original change?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Russell King]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:05:52PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> > and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> > for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> > "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> > them as such.
> > 
> > If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> > CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.
> 
> if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
> CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.

Maybe they're only broken for a small subset of platforms, and someone
added a BROKEN without properly considering whether it should be global
or not?

I don't disagree with the overall notion that CONFIG_BROKEN should not
be set _where_ _possible_.  However, if it needs to be set to get the
required options, then that's what needs to happen until such time that
the above is corrected.

However - and now to the main bug bear - how can we tell what is really
broken if you _just_ change the default configuration file settings for
CONFIG_BROKEN?  What happens is that, on review, we see a simple change.
We'd assume that it has little impact, and we accept that change.

Maybe a month or two down the line, someone whines that their platform
doesn't work for some reason, and it's tracked down to this and the
resulting fallout from disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.

That means that the original review was _worthless_.  It wasn't a
review at all.

So, what I am trying to get across is the need to show the _full_ set
of changes to a default configuratoin when you disable CONFIG_BROKEN,
which is trivially producable if you run the script I've already posted.

You can even use that in conjunction with your present patch to produce
a patch which shows _exactly_ _everything_ which changes as a result of
disabling CONFIG_BROKEN.  Surely giving reviewers the _full_ story is
far better than half a story, and should be something that any change
to the kernel strives for.

If not, what's the point of the original change?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Jesper Juhl]

On 12/13/05, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> >
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > trivial.
> >
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.
>
> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
> it's just for compile regression tests.
>
I agree, and it's very convenient to be able to enable it in
menuconfig etc. Perhaps CONFIG_BROKEN should just be moved to kernel
hacking instead...?

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Jesper Juhl]

On 12/13/05, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=3Dy.
> >
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=3Dy would be if you are working on
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > trivial.
> >
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.
>
> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, e=
ven if
> it's just for compile regression tests.
>
I agree, and it's very convenient to be able to enable it in
menuconfig etc. Perhaps CONFIG_BROKEN should just be moved to kernel
hacking instead...?

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Jesper Juhl]

On 12/13/05, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> >
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > trivial.
> >
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.
>
> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
> it's just for compile regression tests.
>
I agree, and it's very convenient to be able to enable it in
menuconfig etc. Perhaps CONFIG_BROKEN should just be moved to kernel
hacking instead...?

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Jesper Juhl]

On 12/13/05, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> >
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is
> > trivial.
> >
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.
>
> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
> it's just for compile regression tests.
>
I agree, and it's very convenient to be able to enable it in
menuconfig etc. Perhaps CONFIG_BROKEN should just be moved to kernel
hacking instead...?

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:28:41PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > 
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> > trivial.
> > 
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

Let's assume users don't have any hardware (e.g. several SATA drivers) 
that requires EXPERIMENTAL...

> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
> it's just for compile regression tests.

If a kernel developer really wants to enable BROKEN drivers, my patch 
still gives them the possibility to do so with a trivial edit of
init/Kconfig.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
> 						Geert

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:28:41PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > 
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> > trivial.
> > 
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

Let's assume users don't have any hardware (e.g. several SATA drivers) 
that requires EXPERIMENTAL...

> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
> it's just for compile regression tests.

If a kernel developer really wants to enable BROKEN drivers, my patch 
still gives them the possibility to do so with a trivial edit of
init/Kconfig.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
> 						Geert

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:28:41PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > 
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> > trivial.
> > 
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

Let's assume users don't have any hardware (e.g. several SATA drivers) 
that requires EXPERIMENTAL...

> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
> it's just for compile regression tests.

If a kernel developer really wants to enable BROKEN drivers, my patch 
still gives them the possibility to do so with a trivial edit of
init/Kconfig.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
> 						Geert

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:28:41PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> > 
> > The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> > fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> > trivial.
> > 
> > Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
>                       ^^^^
> OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

Let's assume users don't have any hardware (e.g. several SATA drivers) 
that requires EXPERIMENTAL...

> But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
> it's just for compile regression tests.

If a kernel developer really wants to enable BROKEN drivers, my patch 
still gives them the possibility to do so with a trivial edit of
init/Kconfig.

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
> 						Geert

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

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> 
> The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> trivial.
> 
> Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
                      ^^^^
OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
it's just for compile regression tests.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> 
> The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> trivial.
> 
> Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
                      ^^^^
OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
it's just for compile regression tests.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> 
> The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> trivial.
> 
> Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
                      ^^^^
OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
it's just for compile regression tests.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.
> 
> The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
> fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
> trivial.
> 
> Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.
                      ^^^^
OK, a user, not an expert. Let's assume users don't enable EXPERIMENTAL.

But I'd like to at least have the possibility to enable broken drivers, even if
it's just for compile regression tests.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

[2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Adrian,

Hi Russell,

> The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> them as such.
> 
> If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.

if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.

We are talking about a class of bugs that can usually be easily fixed if 
reported - so why aren't they reported?

The MTD_SHARP case is a good example, because otherwise I might have 
soon sent a patch that would have removed this driver with the rationale
"both marked as obsolete and BROKEN can clearly be removed".

> Therefore, I request that either you leave the ARM platform configurations
> well alone, or follow the advice I've given so that we can _properly_
> assess the impact of your changes.

Unless someone can tell me a valid case for enabling BROKEN that does 
both create a working configuration and not hide real issues it seems 
the approch below might be the way to go.

Yes, you might dislike this at the first sight.

But if you consider that although this might result in a short-term 
breakage of some configurations, this will also result in proper bug 
reports and fixing of the wrong BROKEN dependency bugs, I hope you agree 
that this will actually improve the situation.

> Thanks.

cu
Adrian


<--  snip  -->


Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.

The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
trivial.

Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

--- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig.old	2005-12-13 18:48:40.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig	2005-12-13 18:48:52.000000000 +0100
@@ -31,19 +31,8 @@
 	  you say Y here, you will be offered the choice of using features or
 	  drivers that are currently considered to be in the alpha-test phase.
 
-config CLEAN_COMPILE
-	bool "Select only drivers expected to compile cleanly" if EXPERIMENTAL
-	default y
-	help
-	  Select this option if you don't even want to see the option
-	  to configure known-broken drivers.
-
-	  If unsure, say Y
-
 config BROKEN
 	bool
-	depends on !CLEAN_COMPILE
-	default y
 
 config BROKEN_ON_SMP
 	bool

[2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Adrian,

Hi Russell,

> The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> them as such.
> 
> If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.

if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.

We are talking about a class of bugs that can usually be easily fixed if 
reported - so why aren't they reported?

The MTD_SHARP case is a good example, because otherwise I might have 
soon sent a patch that would have removed this driver with the rationale
"both marked as obsolete and BROKEN can clearly be removed".

> Therefore, I request that either you leave the ARM platform configurations
> well alone, or follow the advice I've given so that we can _properly_
> assess the impact of your changes.

Unless someone can tell me a valid case for enabling BROKEN that does 
both create a working configuration and not hide real issues it seems 
the approch below might be the way to go.

Yes, you might dislike this at the first sight.

But if you consider that although this might result in a short-term 
breakage of some configurations, this will also result in proper bug 
reports and fixing of the wrong BROKEN dependency bugs, I hope you agree 
that this will actually improve the situation.

> Thanks.

cu
Adrian


<--  snip  -->


Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.

The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
trivial.

Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

--- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig.old	2005-12-13 18:48:40.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig	2005-12-13 18:48:52.000000000 +0100
@@ -31,19 +31,8 @@
 	  you say Y here, you will be offered the choice of using features or
 	  drivers that are currently considered to be in the alpha-test phase.
 
-config CLEAN_COMPILE
-	bool "Select only drivers expected to compile cleanly" if EXPERIMENTAL
-	default y
-	help
-	  Select this option if you don't even want to see the option
-	  to configure known-broken drivers.
-
-	  If unsure, say Y
-
 config BROKEN
 	bool
-	depends on !CLEAN_COMPILE
-	default y
 
 config BROKEN_ON_SMP
 	bool

[2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:00:01PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Adrian,

Hi Russell,

> The defconfig files in arch/arm/configs are for platform configurations
> and are provided by the platform maintainers as a _working_ configuration
> for their platform.  They're not "defconfigs".  They got called
> "defconfigs" as a result of the kbuild "cleanups".  Please don't confuse
> them as such.
> 
> If, in order to have a working platform configuration, they deem that
> CONFIG_BROKEN must be enabled, then that's the way it is.

if a working platform configuration configuration requires 
CONFIG_BROKEN=y, the problem is a bug that should be fixed properly.

We are talking about a class of bugs that can usually be easily fixed if 
reported - so why aren't they reported?

The MTD_SHARP case is a good example, because otherwise I might have 
soon sent a patch that would have removed this driver with the rationale
"both marked as obsolete and BROKEN can clearly be removed".

> Therefore, I request that either you leave the ARM platform configurations
> well alone, or follow the advice I've given so that we can _properly_
> assess the impact of your changes.

Unless someone can tell me a valid case for enabling BROKEN that does 
both create a working configuration and not hide real issues it seems 
the approch below might be the way to go.

Yes, you might dislike this at the first sight.

But if you consider that although this might result in a short-term 
breakage of some configurations, this will also result in proper bug 
reports and fixing of the wrong BROKEN dependency bugs, I hope you agree 
that this will actually improve the situation.

> Thanks.

cu
Adrian


<--  snip  -->


Do not allow people to create configurations with CONFIG_BROKEN=y.

The sole reason for CONFIG_BROKEN=y would be if you are working on 
fixing a broken driver, but in this case editing the Kconfig file is 
trivial.

Never ever should a user enable CONFIG_BROKEN.


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

--- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig.old	2005-12-13 18:48:40.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm2-full/init/Kconfig	2005-12-13 18:48:52.000000000 +0100
@@ -31,19 +31,8 @@
 	  you say Y here, you will be offered the choice of using features or
 	  drivers that are currently considered to be in the alpha-test phase.
 
-config CLEAN_COMPILE
-	bool "Select only drivers expected to compile cleanly" if EXPERIMENTAL
-	default y
-	help
-	  Select this option if you don't even want to see the option
-	  to configure known-broken drivers.
-
-	  If unsure, say Y
-
 config BROKEN
 	bool
-	depends on !CLEAN_COMPILE
-	default y
 
 config BROKEN_ON_SMP
 	bool