From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794243157; b=be+Ak3o092XEzY7m+8U7JPe5Q4LEiCJeOL7Aaq6iW8yUJREU+7EyDRwRftN1U4eznERt BQLT44aEYlXo3f6Fu0Q62M9vfL7j0V20/kwBXlQb7dUYIVHdErskhQhrZenKdptzrcZ8O SkeqLSUe43eUi0RwCVoG5vrySEzpTH4DFa7+U1qt6bAo40xS7QJ4sc/7sl6T1agWecG3+ 5gEJInbemUP0JpKXqq+ewfdeY1Yel9YcBx6cSQzZngXarfzpSwGBIkW1l0uQiAjwuIcA3 OkTj5Mv5ung5+N7jzMI5h1GmhLnFJhGDcsXz0xJQXv3gdPQw5f+7MI49KGNQ40dKDkA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794243157; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To; bh=F4x7I/eJDYyTNVsMVYbfqhXkVQVdTo3yCjuGDH6ZAmo=; b=AaL8VjYhOXKTYFKU37QK1y2q9URQ+QPjQKIgiVI59cINtNZPTMV1jmeEfHqHQLhChEks l15K2SsGzWsiywLej9MSuqtNtn3152VO5VTCLTCDHPSwg8dPgsZyZvJdCxcR0LFRtDi+Y NBHKeVtcOae3kYKMTlbrFY51B4LATCZbFwmLviXYfJ2+o7G0dfZya8LMubya3n2yPUcvh BHyPCfw/4iBftK8qu0SY7zSFkaRCLnQV9kQ9OZbuP7YOiAieoV5wPF1omvJTaghqh4qA6 kHe69YWL1nQRsy0FeLgSB+Rwu4i2xkByc7cN0PYSdtS0e7WSTX21mZcHrnE4/HnkEHQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=n+cQ+oHs; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79CE0606EE9C; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 16:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=n+cQ+oHs Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AE451F008A3; Mon, 9 Nov 2026 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1794243157; bh=F4x7I/eJDYyTNVsMVYbfqhXkVQVdTo3yCjuGDH6ZAmo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=n+cQ+oHs4cBbfMQFzvBzPg/8epEceBRPZMylsKnZiz3+Hwws89nXEICYALvf106wa Td/07w2Zz6wxTWemagw6Hro2OlOdFYtgNIG47m3nxdipRli+udvLStWhBoXyT+dviZ rS1eBYNcH4Re8jcrBgRC7T1U/sPqCwds69TvpevF0tKONV02vXJYggJ5/FGks0IOPP GqpykssCnax7xbcvBzFVkkyYax4OrULS/hn+V1Ztdu43ueCJAK5IuRVxswwP+nxdi0 ELWNcxvxTd03fdV8O043AEfVmvWhoM/mhE8H0XdWfC+0Ois1m2yz+U04NXwUYXczuv 4cjoDbQsYICCw== Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2026 11:52:30 -0500 From: Nathan Chancellor To: "Ahmed S. Darwish" Cc: Julian Braha , Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Nicolas Schier , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Frederic Weisbecker , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jonathan Corbet , John Ogness , Derek Barbosa , Zbigniew =?utf-8?Q?J=C4=99drzejewski-Szmek?= , Daan De Meyer , Luca Boccassi , linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arighi@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] tools: Introduce a kernel configuration checker Message-ID: <20261109165230.GC1608140@ax162> References: <20261106091922.7560-1-darwi@linutronix.de> <20261109003745.GA3429615@ax162> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Mon, Nov 09, 2026 at 05:15:20PM +0100, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2026, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 08, 2026 at 06:59:26PM +0000, Julian Braha wrote: > > > I think the name will cause confusion. > > > > > > We already have some "kconfig checkers" in-tree, like > > > scripts/kconfig-sym-check.pl > > > > > > But actually, your tool is quite unrelated, because that one checks > > > 'Kconfig' source files, while yours checks the user's '.config' file. > > > > > > This has already caused some confusion in the past, for example in this > > > thread [2], someone misunderstood which one 'kconfig-sym-check' > > > actually checks. > > > > > > In addition to .config vs Kconfig, the name is similar to > > > 'kconfig-sym-check', but is not as descriptive about *what kind* of > > > checks it performs. > > > > Yeah, I had similar thoughts when this initially appeared in my inbox. > > As you mentioned in your email, this is basically a policy checker (“we > > need these configuration options enabled or disabled to meet our > > requirements”), so maybe config-policy-checker or something like that > > would be clearer? > > I would've loved to keep "kconfig" in the name so that outside the kernel, > it's still clear it's about a kernel .config. For example, a Debian package > for this tool can be called "kconfig-checker", "kconfig-policy-checker", > etc. Sure, that makes sense. Like Julian mentioned, kconfig is certainly an overloaded term but there is little we can do about that now :) > What about kconfig-audit? Something like: > > ./tools/kconfig-audit/audit.py -c .config -p PREEMPT_RT > > make POLICY=preempt_rt auditconfig > > config-policy-checker does sound good, but it feels verbose. > > Feedback appreciated. Yeah, config-policy-checker is a little verbose and might not translate into make rules well. kconfig-audit does not sound bad to me, especially with the rename of RULES to POLICY; at the very least, it is on the right track. -- Cheers, Nathan