Re: [PATCH]

Kyle Moffett
2007-04-01T20:08:36Z

On Apr 01, 2007, at 15:47:18, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> +config I_KNOW_WHAT_THE_HELL_I_AM_DOING
>
> Let's just hope kconfig does not bust the stack.
> Perhaps we could shorten that: I_KNOW_WTF_I_AM_DOING

Ah, good point, but I think it fits.

> + bool "Prompt for config options which will break your computer"
>
> s/will break (.*)/could break $1 if done wrong/;

Well, we've had problems in the past where people turn on options
under CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL or CONFIG_EMBEDDED and it breaks in exactly
the specified fashion and they complain on LKML. The point of this
is to expose kconfig tunables which a "normal" kconfig user would get
wrong 99% of the time and would break in obscure ways. For example,
the "CONFIG_MULTITHREAD_PCI_PROBE" option, if it was re-added for
more tinkering, could go under this option.

> +config EXPERT
> + bool
> + depends on I_KNOW_WHAT_THE_HELL_I_AM_DOING
> + default y
>
> Given that, I hope the number of options dependent on CONFIG_EXPERT
> will outnumber those depending on CONFIG_I_KNOW_WTF_I_AM_DOING.

Ah, see, due to the magic of kconfig language this does not show up
as a separate option (no text for the "bool") identifier. It's just
an alias for I_KNOW_WHAT_THE_HELL_I_AM_DOING to make it easier to use
in other Kconfig files ("depends EXPERT && SOME_OPTION!=n &&
ANOTHER_OPTION") instead of s/EXPERT/I_KNOW_WHAT_THE_HELL_I_AM_DOING/g.

> If you want my answer: not-so-ACK, move the text to CONFIG_EXPERT
> and let's stay sane for the next 366 days until next April 01.

:-D

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett