Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:22:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:22:30 -0400 Received: from imladris.infradead.org ([194.205.184.45]:13075 "EHLO infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:22:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:22:07 +0100 (BST) From: Riley Williams X-X-Sender: To: Keith Owens cc: "Adam J. Richter" , , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.4.6p6: dep_{bool,tristate} $CONFIG_ARCH_xxx bugs In-Reply-To: <22864.994042106@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Keith, Adam. >> Does anyone know if there is any code that would break if we >> put quotation marks around the $CONFIG_xxxx references in the >> dep_xxx commands in all of the Config.in files? > That has the same problem that AC was worried about. Variables > that used to be treated as "undefined, don't care" are now > treated as "undefined, assume n and forbid". Whilst there could easily be problems if we allow that for any of the variables, it can't be a problem if we restrict it to variables specifying the architecture in question, as per my previous email. > As long as there is any ambiguity about how a rule is meant to > treat undefined variables, treating all undefined variables as > 'n' is not safe. Before making a global change like this, first > verify that no rule treats undefined variables as "don't care". > Otherwise something will break. Agreed. Best wishes from Riley. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/