Messages in this thread | | | From | Lukas Bulwahn <> | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:20:42 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next] init/Kconfig: fix unmet direct dependencies |
| |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On 2022-09-28 06:49:34 [+0000], Ren Zhijie wrote: > > --- a/init/Kconfig > > +++ b/init/Kconfig > > @@ -1273,6 +1273,7 @@ endif # NAMESPACES > > > > config CHECKPOINT_RESTORE > > bool "Checkpoint/restore support" > > + select PROC_FS > > Couldn't this become a depends? >
It could also be a depends (to resolve the warning).
It is just the question whether:
When PROC_FS is not set, should the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE still be visible as a config option to add (and then automatically add PROC_FS)? Then select is right here.
or:
When PROC_FS is not set, should the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE not be visible as a config option to add? Instead the user first needs to add PROC_FS, then CHECKPOINT_RESTORE becomes visible as an option to add, and then the user can add it. Then depends would be right.
For me, both seem reasonable. So, I assume Ren considered select the better choice.
But maybe Ren can confirm.
A kernel build configuration without PROC_FS is quite special anyway... and then being interested in CHECKPOINT_ RESTORE for such a system is really really special. I wonder if that user then really knows what he or she is configuring at that point.
Lukas
| |