From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 12:11:33 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v5 4/4] umip_basic_test.c: improve kconfig verification to avoid umip wrong abort case In-Reply-To: <20200526100700.GA24819@xpf-desktop.sh.intel.com> References: <20191220092529.3239-1-pengfei.xu@intel.com> <20191220092529.3239-4-pengfei.xu@intel.com> <20200525212401.GA30581@dell5510> <20200526023233.GA14105@xpf-desktop.sh.intel.com> <20200526092346.GB10775@dell5510> <20200526092703.GC10775@dell5510> <20200526100700.GA24819@xpf-desktop.sh.intel.com> Message-ID: <20200526101133.GA3114075@x230> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Pengfei, > > But it looks like Cyril is not against the implementation, it just needs to be > > fixed: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/comment/2352151/ > You are right, actually it could be worked as my suggest way: > "CONFIG_A|CONFIG_B=Y". > I tried to use Cyril's advice "CONFIG_A=X|CONFIG_B=Y" way, which will > add more code complexity, so I just want to solve the problem I am currently > facing. > If we really need the "CONFIG_A=X|CONFIG_B=Y" function, which cannot be > satisfied by "CONFIG_A|CONFIG_B=Y" function in the future, then we could add > this function I think. > Thanks for your considering. I'd also think that we need "CONFIG_A=X|CONFIG_B=Y", because "CONFIG_A|CONFIG_B=Y" is ambiguous (we support both CONFIG_FOO and CONFIG_FOO=bar and this must stay even with |). Will you send a patch for that or shell I fix it with LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION for now? Kind regards, Petr