From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763375AbXGUTHv (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:07:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754302AbXGUTHn (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:07:43 -0400 Received: from nic.NetDirect.CA ([216.16.235.2]:49522 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753324AbXGUTHm (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:07:42 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 72.143.66.27 Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:05:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: Jan Engelhardt cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use menuconfig objects - Fusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <200705102317.l4ANHrUC001117@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-36.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00, INIT_RECVD_OUR_AUTH -20.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > -menu "Fusion MPT device support" > +menuconfig FUSION > + bool "Fusion MPT device support" > depends on PCI > + ---help--- > + Say Y here to get to see options for Fusion Message > + Passing Technology (MPT) drivers. > + This option alone does not add any kernel code. > + > + If you say N, all options in this submenu will be skipped and disabled. > ... > +if FUSION > > config FUSION_SPI ... > +endif # FUSION i just *know* i'm going to regret asking this, but is there a compelling reason why the internal contents of a "menuconfig FUBAR" needs to still be surrounded by a "if FUBAR" condition? wouldn't it be philosophically cleaner if the internals of a menuconfig structure *automatically* depended on selection of the menuconfig and the "if" part was implicit? and having said that, i realize that there are menuconfig examples for which the above is not strictly true, but i can't remember where i've seen them. all i remember about them is that they we're a bit confusing. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page ========================================================================