Re: RFC: kconfig select warnings bogus?

["Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@gmail.com>]

On 5/22/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > On 5/22/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> >> > On 5/20/07, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> >> >>         depends on !PLATFORM_X || HELPER_N_ON_PLATFORM_X
> ...
> >> This is a synthetic example which might not have a real-world application.]
> >
> > Well, it is not relevant / equivalent to any of the four symbols that caused the
> > warnings that this thread is about, at least.
>
> (Have I ever said that this concrete expression can be used in whatever
> fix?)
>
> ...
> > and as I said, this was totally *not* the problem being discussed /
> > solved in this thread (and by that patch).
>
> My point was not about that particular expression. My point was:
>
>         I'm not advocating any specific fixes or pseudo-fixes.
>         I'm advocating the notation of dependencies in the direction
>         "A requires B".
>
> When I said "The standard and maintainable way (for drivers at least)
> is..." I didn't mean the example expression, I meant the *direction* in
> which the example was stating dependencies.

In that case I wish "the points" you make on threads are relevant to them.