Re: [PATCH] config: Add 'make kvmconfig'

[Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 09:52 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 09:03, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
> >> The kvmconfig is an x86 specific thing - so it does not belong
> >> in the scripts/kconfig/Makefile
> >>
> >> The *config namespace is general config targets.
> >>
> >> Suggestion:
> >> Move the implmentation to arch/x86/Makefile and name the target
> >> something that does not match the *config pattern.
> >>
> >> Suggestion:
> >>
> >>    make kvmbootable
> >>
> >> To tell that this convert the current config to a kvmbootable config.
> >>
> >> And then add the target to the x86 specific help too.
> >
> > KVM itself is not x86 specific (although this patch obviously is), so
> > we'd like to keep at least the naming non-x86.
> >
> > Furthermore, the functionality generally fits into the pattern that
> > 'oldconfig' does: it changes an existing config - so having 'config'
> > in the name somewhere makes quite a bit of sense. If i didn't know
> > what 'kvmbootable' does i couldnt guess that it touches the .config -
> > while the *config pattern makes that patently obvious.
> >
> > Could we set aside some sort of name for such subsystem specific
> > purposes and be done with it? Could we reuse the 'defconfig'
> > naming perhaps and make it richer:
> >
> >        make defconfig kvm
> >
> > or:
> >
> >        make defconfig-kvm
> >
> > ? It would be very obvious at a glance what it does.
> 
> This fits in the generic "I have a .config and I want to enable an additional
> option" functionality:
> 
> make oldconfig CONFIG_KVMTOOL_TEST_ENABLE=y
> 
> Don't we already have that support? I seem to remember it flying by.
> Or was it just a proposal that never got implemented?

AFAIK it never got merged.

-- 

Sasha.