Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] kconfig: Introduce KCONFIG(), KCONFIG_BUILTIN() and KCONFIG_MODULE()

Arnaud Lacombe
2011-07-27T13:31:54Z

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 27.7.2011 06:35, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:42:04 -0400 Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Arnaud Lacombe<lacombar@gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Randy Dunlap<rdunlap@xenotime.net>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I prefer your ENABLED() syntax then.
>>>>>
>>>> we need to be careful about namespace pollution/collision.
>>>>
>>> For the sake of having numbers:
>>>
>>> % git grep -w ENABLED . | wc -l
>>>     116
>>> % git grep -w CONFIGURED . | wc -l
>>>      11
>>> % git grep -w KCONFIG . | wc -l
>>>       1
>>
>> OK.  Then I would go back to a predicate like the original patch had,
>> e.g.:
>>        IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NUMA)
>
> Good idea. Is anyone against
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO)
> IS_ENABLED_BUILTIN(CONFIG_FOO)
> IS_ENABLED_MODULE(CONFIG_FOO)
> ?
>
I'm good with the naming, but how would you define those ? I may have
trouble to discern between IS_ENABLED() and IS_ENABLED_BUILTIN().

- Arnaud

> Michal
>