From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from asavdk4.altibox.net ([109.247.116.15]:33296 "EHLO asavdk4.altibox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052AbaFIHtt (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jun 2014 03:49:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:49:35 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [Question] Why CONFIG_SHELL Message-ID: <20140609074934.GB15826@ravnborg.org> References: <20140609140411.95B6.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140609140411.95B6.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: linux-kernel , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 02:04:12PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi experts. > > I think all the macros with CONFIG_ prefix are supposed to be > defined in Kconfig. > But I've been long wondering why there exists one exception: > CONFIG_SHELL. > > Is there any historical, or special reason? It has been like this as far back as I remmeber. I assume that one has planned to set the shell in Kconfig back then. > Is it good to rename it to KBUILD_SHELL or something else? Please do so, to free up the CONFIG_ namespace. I the end Michal will decide if he want this cleanup. On the top of my head I see no problems in doing this, but maybe there are some out-of-tree modules or similar we need to consider... Sam