From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: on builds/randconfigs (was: [PATCH -next] thermal: depends on NET) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:18:00 -0800 Message-ID: <20110112131800.d64c1a86.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20101213163607.0b0a7c3a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20101213112033.d0060e6c.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20110110090059.6f4d739d.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <4D2DE97C.2000205@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: Randy Dunlap , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell , Zhang Rui , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Zimny Lech List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 13:35:10 -0500 (EST) Len Brown wrote: > Do I care about the phantom configs that would be possible > if these false dependencies were not in place. No, > not until somebody invents such a system, > and may be not even then. > > Is there a user out there on LKML who can dream up > a use for one of these phantom configs and claim that > his life will end if he'd prevented from building it? > Sure. Does he suffer from a total lack of perspective? > Yes. These unusable config combinations should be prevented via Kconfig. That prevents users from selecting them, which otherwise adds to our workload and to theirs. It also prevents false-positives during our useful randconfig testing.