Re: [PATCHv3] Make CONFIG_EXPERT select CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL to unhide debug options

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:39:39AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 08:16:09PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:51:30AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > Several debugging options currently default to y, such as
> > > > CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE and CONFIG_DEBUG_RODATA.  Embedded users might
> > > > want to turn those options off to save space; however, turning them off
> > > > requires turning on CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL to unhide them.  Since
> > > > CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL exists specifically to unhide debugging options, and
> > > > CONFIG_EXPERT exists specifically to unhide options potentially needed
> > > > by experts and/or embedded users, make CONFIG_EXPERT automatically imply
> > > > CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL.
> > > > 
> > > > Change various debugging options to only reference DEBUG_KERNEL, not
> > > > EXPERT.
> > > 
> > > Ok, so ideally this should have been done in two patches. They are both
> > > different logical changes that don't imply the same.
> > 
> > Fair enough; I'd considered whether to split this patch or not, and
> > ended up with "not" on the theory that this seemed like a case of "fix
> > an API and fix up the callers", but I can easily split it in v4.
> 
> You haven't just fixed the API and propagated to the callers accordingly.
> What you did is to fix the API and also completely change the behaviour of the callers.
> 
> You have changed EXPERT to imply DEBUG_KERNEL.

yes, i suggested that, because it leads to a more maintainable 
(EXPERT noise free) DEBUG_KERNEL Kconfig section.

> You'd have fixed the callers accordingly if you only changed 
> "depend on EXPERT && DEBUG_KERNEL" into "depend on EXPERT" in the 
> callers, because if EXPERT => DEBUG_KERNEL then (EXPERT && 
> DEBUG_KERNEL) == EXPERT. Thus it would have fit into the same logic 
> and gathering the whole into a single patch would have made sense 
> (although that's debatable, I would have cut that personally, but 
> we don't care at that level).

Hm, that's my fault - i missed that.

Thanks,

	Ingo