On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:09 PM, NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 22:03:35 +0100 Paul Bolle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 07:50 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> > Actually the prefix of this macro is "CONFIG_AS_", not "CONFIG_" :-) >> > CONFIG_AS_ is reserved for assembly magic, and is never used by the the >> > kconfig system. >> > >> > (Well..... I might have made bits of that up, but "git grep 'config AS_'" >> > doesn't find anything). >> >> That's correct, there are no Kconfig symbols starting with AS_. But >> still, I would like to hear whether there's a reasonable chance I might >> convince other people to adopt my peeve. >> >> The thinking behind that peeve is, basically, that where people >> encounter a CONFIG_* macro they should only have to check the .config >> file to see how that macro was evaluated in the build that was used. >> > > Personally, I don't care.
A problem with those identifiers is that the CONFIG_ prefix is reserved for Kconfig features in Make and CPP syntax. The _MODULE suffix for CPP alone. Sadly, this convention is only documented in the Kconfig C code itself. Nonetheless, such cases give hard times to static analysis tools that then have to deal with such false positives. Kind regards, Valentin > But I find that developers in general are more responsive to code than to > peeves. > > So if you post a patch which makes the change that you want, then you are > more likely to get a useful response than if you just post a peeve. > It may not be the response you want of course.... > > NeilBrown -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
