Re: Kconfig troubles when using menuconfig - Was: [patch]Re: [linux-usb-devel] linux-2.6.22-rc5-gf1518a0 build #300 failed in zc0301_core.c

["Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@gmail.com>]

Hi,

On 6/23/07, Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
> > 1. Kconfig symbols will always have code associated with them.
> > That's the entire purpose of Kconfig, is it not?
>
> A possible counter example: CONFIG_SCSI.
> (RAID_ATTRS is currently a little misplaced).
> It's optional for any config symbol to have any code attached to it,
> menuconfig doesn't change anything.

CONFIG_SCSI _does_ have code associated with it.
(so does CONFIG_RAID_ATTRS)

[ I was expecting you to give the counter-example of various
config symbols that control the assignment of some value to
some variable, actually, but then I would've countered back
with the fact that a variable is also "code" and not something
that is only about presentation / user interface :-) ]

> > 2. "menuconfig" symbols, otoh, were _invented_ for another reason
> > entirely: presentation and user interface i.e. so that users are able
> > to disable entire menus (and all the options contained therein)
> > without having to enter into the menu first, and without having to
> > disable all options individually (which was the situation that existed
> > before the introduction of these menuconfig objects).
>
> Since I'm the one who _invented_ it, I can tell you you're wrong. :)
> This functionality isn't limited to menuconfig symbols. The menu option
> simply changes how the child symbols can be displayed.

Yup, so how / why am I wrong? I was making the point that a
"menuconfig" does not have code associated with it. Why else
_was_ it invented then, if not only for presentation / user interface
purposes? I really don't see what role it plays as a "config symbol"
in Kconfig (other than the fact that that is how it got implemented
to do its thing).

Satyam