From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756873AbXESAG2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2007 20:06:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753395AbXESAGU (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2007 20:06:20 -0400 Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:13594 "EHLO rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753103AbXESAGT (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 May 2007 20:06:19 -0400 Message-ID: <464E3FBD.7090704@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:07:25 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Robert P. J. Day" CC: Linda Walsh , LKML Subject: Re: building i386 requires s390: "driver/crypto/Kconfig" sourcing s390 arch References: <464DFF5F.5010905@tlinx.org> <20070518141735.aae3921a.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <464E1E9A.8060605@tlinx.org> <20070518161920.ae0ed062.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:46:02 -0700 Linda Walsh wrote: > >>> If the standard that other architectures are using is to put their >>> devices in the crypto directory, then one might expect all crypto >>> devices to be there. Why should s390 stick out and put its crypto >>> device someplace under the s390 tree, forcing parts of the s390 >>> tree to be included when building other architectures? >> drivers/crypto/ currently contains drivers for x86_32 and s390 (the >> latter by indirection, which is what is causing you this >> grief/problem/whatever), but it certainly looks like it could be a >> home for crypto drivers on any arch. > > this all sounds vaguely familiar. oh, wait ... > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/28/212 I just tried several things to "fix" it, but none of them worked. I wouldn't mind making missing files in *config be non-fatal, i.e., just print a warning message, but I doubt that the maintainer(s) would accept that. -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***