Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220928064934.70867-1-renzhijie2@huawei.com> <YzPxMvjdjVEK1/b1@linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <YzPxMvjdjVEK1/b1@linutronix.de>
From:   Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:20:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKXUXMxGt9UGhw9Ap_M3U2AF1vw2dX7WpDO71=UwV0Be3t4sNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] init/Kconfig: fix unmet direct dependencies
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Ren Zhijie <renzhijie2@huawei.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        ndesaulniers@google.com, nathan@kernel.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        masahiroy@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, seanjc@google.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, ojeda@kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, atomlin@redhat.com, ddiss@suse.de,
        christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

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.

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