Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] tools: Introduce a kernel configuration checker

["Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwi@linutronix.de>]

On Sun, 08 Nov 2026, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2026 at 06:59:26PM +0000, Julian Braha wrote:
> > I think the name will cause confusion.
> >
> > We already have some "kconfig checkers" in-tree, like
> > scripts/kconfig-sym-check.pl
> >
> > But actually, your tool is quite unrelated, because that one checks
> > 'Kconfig' source files, while yours checks the user's '.config' file.
> >
> > This has already caused some confusion in the past, for example in this
> > thread [2], someone misunderstood which one 'kconfig-sym-check'
> > actually checks.
> >
> > In addition to .config vs Kconfig, the name is similar to
> > 'kconfig-sym-check', but is not as descriptive about *what kind* of
> > checks it performs.
>
> Yeah, I had similar thoughts when this initially appeared in my inbox.
> As you mentioned in your email, this is basically a policy checker (“we
> need these configuration options enabled or disabled to meet our
> requirements”), so maybe config-policy-checker or something like that
> would be clearer?

I would've loved to keep "kconfig" in the name so that outside the kernel,
it's still clear it's about a kernel .config. For example, a Debian package
for this tool can be called "kconfig-checker", "kconfig-policy-checker",
etc.

What about kconfig-audit?  Something like:

   ./tools/kconfig-audit/audit.py -c .config -p PREEMPT_RT

   make POLICY=preempt_rt auditconfig

config-policy-checker does sound good, but it feels verbose.

Feedback appreciated.

Thanks!

--
Ahmed S. Darwish
Linutronix GmbH