From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
wli@holomorphy.com, davem@redhat.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux390@de.ibm.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: architectures with their own "config PCMCIA"
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:18:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040812001848.GW26174@fs.tum.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0408112223140.20634@scrub.home>
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:45:21PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Roman,
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Roman, is it intentional that PCMCIA!=n is true if there's no PCMCIA
> > option, or is it simply a bug?
>
> Yes, undefined symbols have a (string) value of "" . Maybe it's time to
> add a warning for such comparisons...
is there any strong reason why undefined symbols aren't equivalent to
symbols with a value of "n"?
Many !=n seems to be bogus (especially ones from the automatic
transition to the new Kconfig) and I'll audit them. But rewriting valid
FOO!=n to (FOO=y || FOO=m) doesn't sound like an improvement.
> bye, Roman
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
wli@holomorphy.com, davem@redhat.com, geert@linux-m68k.org,
schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux390@de.ibm.com,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: architectures with their own "config PCMCIA"
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 02:18:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040812001848.GW26174@fs.tum.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0408112223140.20634@scrub.home>
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:45:21PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Roman,
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > Roman, is it intentional that PCMCIA!=n is true if there's no PCMCIA
> > option, or is it simply a bug?
>
> Yes, undefined symbols have a (string) value of "" . Maybe it's time to
> add a warning for such comparisons...
is there any strong reason why undefined symbols aren't equivalent to
symbols with a value of "n"?
Many !=n seems to be bogus (especially ones from the automatic
transition to the new Kconfig) and I'll audit them. But rewriting valid
FOO!=n to (FOO=y || FOO=m) doesn't sound like an improvement.
> bye, Roman
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-12 0:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-07 17:01 architectures with their own "config PCMCIA" Adrian Bunk
2004-08-07 17:01 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-07 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-07 17:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-07 17:25 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-07 17:25 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-07 18:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-08-07 18:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-08-07 20:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-08-07 20:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-08-07 21:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-08-07 21:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2004-08-11 16:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-11 16:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-08-11 20:17 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-11 20:17 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-11 21:40 ` Sam Ravnborg
2004-08-11 21:40 ` Sam Ravnborg
2004-08-12 0:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-12 0:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-12 8:59 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-12 8:59 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-14 20:47 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-14 20:47 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-15 17:32 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-15 17:32 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-15 19:37 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-08-15 19:37 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2004-08-15 20:15 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-15 20:15 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-15 23:01 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-15 23:01 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-15 23:22 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-15 23:22 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-11 21:45 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-11 21:45 ` Roman Zippel
2004-08-12 0:18 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2004-08-12 0:18 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-08-12 2:19 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-08-12 2:19 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-08-11 16:54 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-11 16:54 ` William Lee Irwin III
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040812001848.GW26174@fs.tum.de \
--to=bunk@fs.tum.de \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux390@de.ibm.com \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.