On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:35:24PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > On 1 December 2015 at 10:46, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> > > wrote: > >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:07:10 -0800 Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> > >> wrote: > >>> IA32_EMULATION depends on X86_64, so doesn't that reduce to: > >>> def_bool ALPHA || M68K || SPARC || X86_32 || IA32_EMULATION > > Ok. looks cleaner to me. > > >> It's a bit old fashioned to add an expression like this at the > >> definition site anyway. The cool new thing is to do > >> > >> def_bool ARCH_WANT_USELIB > >> > >> then go off and define ARCH_WANT_USELIB in the appropriate places in > >> the per-arch Kconfig files. > > > > That's useful for new to-be-implemented features, but this dependency list > > is > > (hopefully) cast in stone. No new architecture should need this. > > So I see no reason to clutter up more Kconfig files. > > I agree. Splitting oneline patch to a patch that changes 5 files around kernel > tree only risks merge conflicts in this case.
True; I take back what I said about that approach being cleaner. It does ease maintenance in cases where the list may change, but in this case, the list should never change again. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
