From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Q4aPy-00062J-3q for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:01:15 +0000 Message-ID: <4D91F432.2070406@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:01:06 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: fix kconfig dependency warning References: <20110328134016.deb5d0c8.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <1301382178.2816.69.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1301382178.2816.69.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, lkml , Adrian Hunter List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 03/29/11 00:02, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 13:40 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> From: Randy Dunlap >> >> Fix another kconfig dependency warning, this time in ubifs. >> >> warning: (UBIFS_FS_DEBUG && LOCKDEP && LATENCYTOP) selects KALLSYMS_ALL which has unmet direct dependencies (DEBUG_KERNEL && KALLSYMS) >> >> Without this patch, we can have: >> # CONFIG_KALLSYMS is not set >> CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL=y >> which is useless (does nothing unless KALLSYMS is enabled). >> >> However, ubifs builds successfully with or without this patch, >> and it builds with this line completely deleted, >> so what was this 'select' for? Just developer convenience? > > Well, here is the idea. You can compile UBIFS with debugging and without > debugging. Without debugging the resulting ubifs.ko is much smaller, so > some embedded people prefer it this way. > > If you select debugging support, then we'll compile it a lot of > assertions, self-checks, test-modes, extra error messages with detailed > dumps. And we want to see stackdumps when errors or problems happen, > this is why we select KALLSYMS_ALL. > > So I guess instead we should do: > > select KALLSYMS > select KALLSYMS_ALL Yes, that should do it. Thanks for the explanation. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***