Re: [PATCH] kconfig: introduce nonint_oldconfig and loose_nonint_oldconfig

[Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>]

On 04/13/10 13:18, Aristeu Rozanski wrote:
>>> This patch has been around for a long time in Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise
>>> Linux kernels and it may be useful for others. The nonint_oldconfig target
>>> will fail and print the unset config options while loose_nonint_oldconfig will
>>> simply let the config option unset. They're useful in distro kernel packages
>>> where the config files are built using a combination of smaller config files.
>>> The patch's author AFAIK is Arjan van de Ven. Arjan, please add a Signed-off-by
>>> if you're the original author.
>>
>> Roland McGrath added the loose parts according to his email of 2008.Mar.05:
>> "I added this one (loose_nonint_oldconfig target, -B option to conf)."
> hm, I can't see the -B there, maybe the functionality he's referring to is
> the def_no?

+loose_nonint_oldconfig: $(obj)/conf
+	$< -B $(Kconfig)

...

+		case 'B':
+			input_mode = dont_ask_dont_tell;
+			break;


>> after Dave Jones posted this patch.
>>
>> (adding linux-kbuild mailing list & kbuild maintainer)
>>
>> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@redhat.com> 
>>
>>
>>> @@ -613,5 +641,5 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>>>  			exit(1);
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	return return_value;
>>>  }
>>
>> Having 'make oldconfig' exit with Exit status: 139  (for example)
>> can be confusing.  I know that from experience.  It took me a bit
>> to find out what that meant.  That part could be improved...
> ok, no real reason to keep incrementing that. no different error codes exist
> other than "1". Do you think we need to introduce different return codes?
> 

I would prefer a fixed value, like 86.  or 11.  or a useful printf text message.

-- 
~Randy