Re: [PATCH v2] kconfig: autogenerated config_is_xxx macro

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>]

On 14:21 Fri 13 May     , Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 10:30 Fri 13 May     , Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > * Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_BIOS
> > >> > > - if (!rt->signature) {
> > >> > > + if (config_is_pci_bios() && !rt->signature) {
> > >> >
> > >> > Makes sense - but please name it in a more obvious way, such as:
> > >> >
> > >> >     pci_bios_enabled()
> > >> the idea to generate the macro via Kconfig
> > >
> > > Okay, and there we are stuck with whatever the Kconfig name is. (we could
> > > rename that but not needed really)
> > >
> > > Why not the canonical config_pci_bios() variant? It's the shortest one to
> > > write. The '_is' looks pretty superfluous to me.
> > >
> > > Hm, i guess it could be mixed up with a function that configures the pci_bios.
> > >
> > > I guess since i don't have any better idea config_is_pci_bios() sounds like a
> > > good choice after all.
> > 
> > But we don't name config options like CONFIG_IS_PCI_BIOS, do we?
> 
> The problem is that 'config' can be misunderstood as a verb - it's often used 
> for function names to say 'to configure'.
> 
> By naming it 'config_is_()' it unambiguously becomes a noun.
with Andi and Ingo ack

can I assume this patch go the -next and the .40

if yes I rebase some of my patch against it for at91

I'll regulary send patch to switch to it

Best Regards,
J.