Re: [RFC PATCH] SCSI: split Kconfig menu into two

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2007-09-15T16:52:26Z

On Saturday 15 September 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:44:59AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Stefan Richter wrote:
> >> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 04:11:45PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >>>> Perfect is in the eye of the beholder. You would consequently have to
> >>>> add such options into all menus which contain scsi low-level providers.
> >>> Kconfig is a user interface, so perfect is what is best for the
> >>> kconfig users.
> >> Duplicate options with different names in different menus, but which all
> >> do the same, --- is this the best for users?
> >
> > I recognize it's a rhetorical question :) The answer is of course "no".
> >
> > I hope the other participants of this thread register the severe
> > disinclination of the maintainers to change this stuff, as this is a
> > classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill[1].
> >
> > For the -vast majority- of people configuring the kernel, this is not a
> > problem. Kernel people are -expected- to know what they're doing,
>
> I doubt your claim is true since the vast majority of kconfig users
> are most likely not kernel developers.

Yes, we shouldn't be needlessly raising the bar for power users.

> @Greg:
> Do you have any numbers regarding how your "Linux Kernel in a Nutshell"
> is selling?
> Even download numbers?
>
> > especially when switching from one major subsystem to another.
>
> It's not only about switching, the same problems awaits people when
> configuring a kernel for their hardware the first time.

*nods*

> > Therefore, all this is IMO wasted effort and hot air. There are far more
> > important issues to deal with.
>
> Why don't we dump kconfig and write the .config by hand? ;-)
>
> More seriously:
> Yes, there are many other important issues in the kernel.
> But not fixing kconfig UI problems doesn't fix these issues faster.

Agreed, and actually not fixing Kconfig UI problems will make the other
issues being fixed *slower* (because they result in *increased* workload
on developers' side).

> I have seen people running into problems because some required
> option wasn't set - in the simplest cases things like IDE without DMA
> because a help text wasn't updated when more hardware support was added
> to a driver.

This is why nowadays IDE DMA support is automatically selected by IDE
host drivers that need it - a big relief for everybody.

> You might not care about the kconfig users.
> But other people do.

...and even if their attempts/solutions may not be proper yet they should
not be discouraged to work on these problems...

Thanks,
Bart