lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC 0/6] Regressions for "imply" behavior change
    On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:12:56AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jani Nikula
    > > <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 5:25 AM Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com> wrote:
    > > > >> BTW how about adding a new Kconfig option to hide the details of
    > > > >> ( BAR || !BAR) ? as Jason already explained and suggested, this will
    > > > >> make it easier for the users and developers to understand the actual
    > > > >> meaning behind this tristate weird condition.
    > > > >>
    > > > >> e.g have a new keyword:
    > > > >> reach VXLAN
    > > > >> which will be equivalent to:
    > > > >> depends on VXLAN && !VXLAN
    > > > >
    > > > > I'd love to see that, but I'm not sure what keyword is best. For your
    > > > > suggestion of "reach", that would probably do the job, but I'm not
    > > > > sure if this ends up being more or less confusing than what we have
    > > > > today.
    > > >
    > > > Ah, perfect bikeshedding topic!
    > > >
    > > > Perhaps "uses"? If the dependency is enabled it gets used as a
    > > > dependency.
    > >
    > > That seems to be the best naming suggestion so far
    >
    > What I don't like about "uses" is that it doesn't convey the conditional
    > dependency. It could be mistaken as being synonymous to "select".
    >
    > What about "depends_if" ? The rationale is that this is actually a
    > dependency, but only if the related symbol is set (i.e. not n or empty).

    I think that stretches the common understanding of 'depends' a bit too
    far.. A depends where the target can be N is just too strange.

    Somthing incorporating 'optional' seems like a better choice
    'optionally uses' seems particularly clear and doesn't overload
    existing works like depends or select

    Jason

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-04-16 20:22    [W:4.935 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site