From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]:51380 "EHLO acsinet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752674Ab0DMU0p (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:26:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4BC4D310.6060705@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:24:48 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kconfig: introduce nonint_oldconfig and loose_nonint_oldconfig References: <20100413194747.GX31193@redhat.com> <20100413130031.d4dec19b.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20100413201759.GY31193@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20100413201759.GY31193@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Aristeu Rozanski Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Michal Marek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@redhat.com, kyle@redhat.com, vgoyal@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com On 04/13/10 13:18, Aristeu Rozanski wrote: >>> This patch has been around for a long time in Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise >>> Linux kernels and it may be useful for others. The nonint_oldconfig target >>> will fail and print the unset config options while loose_nonint_oldconfig will >>> simply let the config option unset. They're useful in distro kernel packages >>> where the config files are built using a combination of smaller config files. >>> The patch's author AFAIK is Arjan van de Ven. Arjan, please add a Signed-off-by >>> if you're the original author. >> >> Roland McGrath added the loose parts according to his email of 2008.Mar.05: >> "I added this one (loose_nonint_oldconfig target, -B option to conf)." > hm, I can't see the -B there, maybe the functionality he's referring to is > the def_no? +loose_nonint_oldconfig: $(obj)/conf + $< -B $(Kconfig) ... + case 'B': + input_mode = dont_ask_dont_tell; + break; >> after Dave Jones posted this patch. >> >> (adding linux-kbuild mailing list & kbuild maintainer) >> >> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap >> >> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Aristeu Rozanski >> >> >>> @@ -613,5 +641,5 @@ int main(int ac, char **av) >>> exit(1); >>> } >>> } >>> - return 0; >>> + return return_value; >>> } >> >> Having 'make oldconfig' exit with Exit status: 139 (for example) >> can be confusing. I know that from experience. It took me a bit >> to find out what that meant. That part could be improved... > ok, no real reason to keep incrementing that. no different error codes exist > other than "1". Do you think we need to introduce different return codes? > I would prefer a fixed value, like 86. or 11. or a useful printf text message. -- ~Randy