From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm2-f12.google.com (mail-wm2-f12.google.com [74.125.225.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2096D472095 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:25:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.225.140 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789039537; cv=none; b=S3q9Yw1A099WSXAb8eQGAsH19xx+1rcUefGdZosrTs1pg2+6YuFoNcVKcwMAfQNXyShc1+07/iUBEI11f768WR8PR2XGKjCvjfB+op8nZ7hqL0tbYu0DzWV3E+q5Z8zTOcOGkuhEOTZekMol43gdu4u1ilpz4UWBb/9OjUzQ2Ow= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789039537; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ILhGSUejk/Y4nvVR24zvebnkW/PDZEdcYpseEDu6kDU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=JS4R06rzlx3KXDJbMeF/j5XE3PUBSu6dAvpazDa+6u5BDuayuO+PccJKpAwQA3x9jeJMIym4VBNlLl9Mx3gw9c0m9bpcF7gcVLoESiUnRcbql7vEhAfakvfyhQQCoU3SrGN1I8wWU+axwjzyyqw+1nzMgBI6dgytuW/VNTjYs5s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=Fa81zODM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.225.140 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Fa81zODM" Received: by mail-wm2-f12.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-49cd38e0e5dso16129935e9.2 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 04:25:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1789039534; x=1789644334; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=JpU/A1KL3cFEe1xLZy5hIfTjvoDOGfu4pjwD6ajzN3s=; b=Fa81zODMjFWmNH97l5eGF0TaDlKGcrox9KNZ9W7aT44tWi4zN65HPrzHVm6uMT0IxL hWQvPOS9KE2xHHfHGkWB8EkN5FsoZ1YrIJ0NE+TaXFvdCF6zOEl8xpCCRLPulXcCuUqo Vnuzip6sL0cSIHZxnmp3liX9dRy78A0LPSl181d7dgtYyH4RFp2TSXB2+cWQgCMAqmkI JxTmbEf0uwRhKdghKR7QW/MD+1PdN9BUBpMi4jZ7qmFn+FtqYVN14QHoN8f+nFx9rZ0l m49Wy+2LrXkFizlirLyKNTh6q8ndc+aTlqSLe+vki6xkXZG5LvBNmg95qOXdPczaQvpF BcMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1789039534; x=1789644334; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:from :content-language:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id:sender:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=JpU/A1KL3cFEe1xLZy5hIfTjvoDOGfu4pjwD6ajzN3s=; b=gHXHFMrWLck3DrPghYGRKfCLh+ygChN7dc7DE58XlK0YUhROXzdetIgmUcnc5XAZR9 mRLIToEOhojm28mIG2lMuOs0nep0nx7IuPfLX9gqLnnYz4S0XeG26XZBLt79SnzDrxlm FxcwihBXpjM/jeVkkNel/9YuirciSjqHnmKRtoZzcCCD9YcNOXEuNFE9JEtIiGN/RT10 cXhCvLKXgsHTRaUw/SpiMCE8xBJd+H8SQz5XEQSx8+rPRDa9jJQWDbKKk6ahboCFGaPT 8Y8BLtqt7WWY8fO/Z+LuQFDCwO+swqU5D0bmZtLCELJ0hXOJ+MKCHxFgvzGlI7Xdapk1 k3bA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBybn11l9b/9HeVn3WscU3B+ids6aOhEmQXvnkOn9boOYX8Q441N4V78mQ6sm7ljvZ5HExfXVEMYCmQohkU=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++mGq8rdqzW1wI2WvjShfp0n+nCfS7iv5xmU/xyFLvOTypXZGC9r XAqgH6XElopv/Q1PKKxcjhRqmcC7fKmuAlmp6NYPSN6FHFkCGOb8eUkv X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou0opq6iIH8O1EAgDXrNvEN+zNq+Zh8JDN6hnDsFrzbLhdSM/TGo1iDFrXgTjWx XKTrWomN7kuq4oKm+bXhoH8uXMcjp+Z1JFSx29qSe8kbScRV75Z1wXgs30rAHPtdkpeTQt8Mf9k l5+08a0uFOBrDUzG2exhs+IIMbybhq6pGvvO4YYTtu6O3XRdCsRFA1kuI3pGykYStcIOU7HALza nEe5y7+5X9fAsYS5Qjjhs0Yl9qPboP+s3+9qwYkM29ouBu9tXtFA1xCfE/gTLyrbWhRGWUyx5MB PT/YguzvL1IKnTSuFCV6tRmmRzYZd7cutXXoNZ8U1rWHyksuD0F8yL1nQQyK5QKEEOoZE+Hh8Fm oArFK4ZX2fC0btda7EbQZvH3gbzRKrBf5iUWoa0zdc+56rxILcRnxfXNKCFMHZKM8R0z3AO1JjD bmX1hiNwwfUkVOhUb8effacqcaeq/EQGrRiJInvP59pKseJVBb79hHlxj4mDQ26YgSCV/fxUqSk 4U3EdAmS/XSKxinrQmxHBYJ932KTHoyMVaLjhPeFtB22Y5W/LxoihyNWMtqFJmALyE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:a315:b0:499:a277:e8b5 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-49d258cefc8mr110707615e9.3.1789039534000; Thu, 10 Sep 2026 04:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.128.10.232] (195-23-151-163.net.novis.pt. [195.23.151.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-49d26bdb789sm78149765e9.1.2026.09.10.04.25.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 10 Sep 2026 04:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Julian Braha Message-ID: <71d40a5d-21a7-47ae-aa18-34f640a08779@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 12:25:32 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kconfig: warn about malformed KCONFIG_PROBABILITY values To: Dmitrii Tulnov Cc: nathan@kernel.org, nsc@kernel.org, jacmet@uclibc.org, yann.morin.1998@free.fr, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20260910091322.4-1-tulnov.dl@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Julian Braha In-Reply-To: <20260910091322.4-1-tulnov.dl@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/10/26 10:13, Dmitrii Tulnov wrote: > Hi Julian, > > Thanks for the review. I've addressed your comments locally for v3. > Before sending it, I'd like to clarify how the new warning should > interact with KCONFIG_WERROR. > > With KCONFIG_PROBABILITY=50% and KCONFIG_WERROR=1, v2 and my current > v3 still exit successfully and write .config. The warning is printed > directly and does not go through the existing warning/error handling. > > Would you prefer it to become an error when KCONFIG_WERROR is set, > while remaining a warning otherwise, or to stay non-fatal even in > that mode during the compatibility period? I'd lean toward honoring > the explicit strict mode. Yes, better to support it. Thanks! > > For the compatibility tests, I propose comparing the generated > configurations for 50% versus 50:0:0 and -0 versus 0 with the same > seed, and checking that the malformed input produces exactly one > warning. That would put checks for the preserved interpretation in > the submitted tests, in addition to the local comparisons I've run. > Does that sound appropriate for this patch? > Yeah that's fine. > Best regards, > Dmitrii