Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201208164821.2686082-1-paul@crapouillou.net>
In-Reply-To: <20201208164821.2686082-1-paul@crapouillou.net>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 09:59:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZFy8bvsV+HkzWsu0OKjg6i82o-mL+7v3_Ev5h_QR=xiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] if_enabled.h: Add IF_ENABLED_OR_ELSE() and
 IF_ENABLED() macros
To:     Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, od@zcrc.me,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:48 PM Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> wrote:

> Introduce a new header <linux/if_enabled.h>, that brings two new macros:
> IF_ENABLED_OR_ELSE() and IF_ENABLED().

I understand what the patch is trying to do, but when we already have
IS_ENABLED() in <linux/kconfig.h> this syntax becomes a big cognitive
confusion for the mind.

At least the commit needs to explain why it doesn't work to use
IS_ENABLED() instead so that this is needed.

Certainly the build failures must be possible to solve so that this
can live with the sibling IS_ENABLED() inside <linux/kconfig.h>,
it can't be too hard.

Yours,
Linus Walleij