Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 08/02/2023 20.43, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 8/2/23 20:26, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> >>> We currently have a situation where disabling a Kconfig might result >>> in a runtime error when QEMU selects the corresponding device as a >>> default value for an option. But first a disambiguation: >>> >>> Kconfig default:: >>> a device "Foo" for which there's "config FOO default y" or "config X >>> imply FOO" in Kconfig. >>> >>> QEMU hardcoded default:: >>> a fallback; a device "Foo" that is chosen in case no corresponding >>> option is given in the command line. >>> >>> The issue I'm trying to solve is that there is no link between the two >>> "defaults" above, which means that when the user at build time >>> de-selects a Kconfig default, either via configs/devices/*/*.mak or >>> --without-default-devices, the subsequent invocation at runtime might >>> continue to try to create the missing device due to QEMU defaults. >> This will keep bitrotting if we don't cover such configs in our CI. >> Why do you want to get this fixed BTW? I'm not sure there is a big >> interest (as in "almost no users"). >> I tried to do that few years ago [*] and Thomas said: >> "in our CI, we should test what users really need, >> and not each and every distantly possible combination." > > You're mis-quoting me here. That comment was made when we were talking > about very arbitrary configs that likely nobody is going to use. > Fabiano's series here is about the --without-default-devices configure > option which everybody could add to their set of "configure" options > easily. Indeed - while trying to reduce the compile time I ran into this with a plain --without-default-devices check. We also have in the meantime introduced --with-devices-FOO so we can do minimal builds. > > Thomas -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
