Re: [PATCH -next] init/Kconfig: fix unmet direct dependencies

[Ren Zhijie <renzhijie2@huawei.com>]

在 2022/9/28 15:20, Lukas Bulwahn 写道:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 9:01 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> On 2022-09-28 06:49:34 [+0000], Ren Zhijie wrote:
>>> --- a/init/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/init/Kconfig
>>> @@ -1273,6 +1273,7 @@ endif # NAMESPACES
>>>
>>>   config CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
>>>        bool "Checkpoint/restore support"
>>> +     select PROC_FS
>> Couldn't this become a depends?
>>
> It could also be a depends (to resolve the warning).
>
> It is just the question whether:
>
> When PROC_FS is not set, should the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE still be
> visible as a config option to add (and then automatically add
> PROC_FS)? Then select is right here.
>
> or:
>
> When PROC_FS is not set, should the CHECKPOINT_RESTORE not be visible
> as a config option to add? Instead the user first needs to add
> PROC_FS, then CHECKPOINT_RESTORE becomes visible as an option to add,
> and then the user can add it. Then depends would be right.
>
> For me, both seem reasonable. So, I assume Ren considered select the
> better choice.
>
> But maybe Ren can confirm.

My consider is that if CHECKPOINT_RESTORE depends on PROC_FS , when 
PROC_FS is not set the user have no chance to set it on.

Thanks,

Ren

>
> A kernel build configuration without PROC_FS is quite special
> anyway... and then being interested in CHECKPOINT_ RESTORE for such a
> system is really really special. I wonder if that user then really
> knows what he or she is configuring at that point.
>
>
> Lukas
> .
.