Re: Ingo, no more kconfig patches

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 11:52:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > at minimum a warning needs to be emitted by the kconfig tool if such 
> > > incomplete selects are used. I've stopped counting the number of 
> > > times such issues have broken the build and have held up kernel 
> > > development.
> > 
> > It might held up your randconfig compiles.
> > 
> > Actual kernel development isn't much affected.
> 
> uhm, you are quite wrong - countless times have people been bitten by 
> select's breakages in the past, and not via randconfig. That's the main 
> reason why select use in Kconfig was not encouraged for a long time.

But it has not "held up kernel development".

Send a bug report to linux-kernel or with a Cc to me and I'll look at 
the bug.

I've done this for years.

> Select does make sense in some situations but it's a double-edged sword: 
> kconfig does not warn at all about the situations where it's "unsafe" to 
> use it - while it has all the information in the Kconfig files to emit 
> that warning. Instead we get build breakages not visible when an 
> incorrect select is added, but much later, if someone happens to stumble 
> on the wrong kind of .config. That is obviously harmful.

And how would a warning help?

>From an UI perspective we often want to select options that have 
dependencies.

> My larger point is that this kconfig tool bug breeds a constant stream 
> of avoidable breakages, which causes lost manpower and causes a stream 
> of trivial patches hindering maintainers all around the tree. Because 
> every such trivial patch has to be reviewed, tested, it clogs the commit 
> logs, etc.
> 
> So the more trivial patches we _avoid_ having to do in the future, the 
> better. I'm not sure why you are even arguing against this this rather 
> simple point - your arguments are rather hard to understand. Wouldnt you 
> be happier if a whole category of trivial breakages was avoided and if 
> you didnt have to deal with and waste your time on that category of 
> trivial patches anymore?
> 
> Most of the time reoccuring trivial patches are an indicator of some 
> deeper structural problem - as in this case.

Your conclusions are based on an assumption that isn't true.

"trivial patches" are the patches you send.

But they are often bogus.

Fixing these issues properly often requires a deeper understanding of 
both kconfig and the dependencies of the underlying code.

> 	Ingo

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed