Re: [PATCHv2] kconfig: add some Kconfig env variables to make help

Masahiro Yamada
2024-02-29T15:35:55Z

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:47 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
<senozhatsky@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On (24/02/29 12:36), Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > On (24/02/29 11:03), Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > > > > > +++ b/scripts/kconfig/Makefile
> [..]
> > > > > > > > + @echo ''
> > > > > > > > + @echo 'Configuration environment variables:'
> > > > > > > > + @echo ' KCONFIG_WERROR - Turn some Kconfig warnings into error conditions'
> > > > > > > > + @echo ' KCONFIG_WARN_UNKNOWN_SYMBOLS - Make Kconfig warn about all unrecognized config symbols'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > # ===========================================================================
> > > > > > > > # object files used by all kconfig flavours
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.44.0.rc0.258.g7320e95886-goog
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why only two, while Kconfig supports more env variables?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right. I wanted to add only those that we use (and familiar with) for
> > > > > > starters. I'm not familiar with things like KCONFIG_PROBABILITY, for
> > > > > > instance, and not sure how to document it (its Documentation/kbuild/kconfig.rst
> > > > > > description is pretty lengthy).
> > > > >
> > > > > Masahiro, any opinion?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I do not need this patch.
> > >
> > > Do you agree that putting kconfig env knobs into help makes sense
> > > in general? Especially those add valuable sanity checks.
> >
> > I cannot accept the attitude:
>
> This is entirely wrong interpretation.
>
> > "I am interested only in these. I do not care about the rest,
>
> It's "I *do NOT know* what the rest do". I cannot document something
> that I have no knowledge of, can I? So as a reasonable start I added
> only those that I'm familiar with (and I have explicitly stated that
> in previous emails), and I disagree with the "bad attitude" label.

You were aware of:

- several env variables are listed in the document
- your patch would introduce a new "inconsistency"
- somebody else would need to make efforts to solve it

> > This should be all or nothing.
> >
> > I do not think all the env variables can be summarized
> > to fit in help.
>
> So the rational for that was that people run "make help" and find
> out about new build targets, for instance, but there is no way for
> people to find out about new Kconfig features (and yes, we are talking
> "new features" here) that are controlled by env variables. We need
> to do something about it, don't you agree?

Disagree.

I maintain the entire Kconfig, not like you only caring about
a particular feature.

If you add only two in help, I have no idea about
what it will look like in the end.
I am not convinced that it will be in good shape.
So, it is reasonable for me to reject it.

--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada