Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1414829 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-06 11:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-07 00:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH] kconfig.h: use already defined macros for IS_REACHABLE() define Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> - 2016-06-06 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kconfig.h: use already defined macros for IS_REACHABLE() define Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-06 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kconfig.h: use already defined macros for IS_REACHABLE() define Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> - 2016-06-06 23:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kconfig.h: use already defined macros for IS_REACHABLE() define Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2016-06-07 00:10 +0200
| From | Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 11:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] kconfig.h: use already defined macros for IS_REACHABLE() define |
| Message-ID | <rGZ18-2XO-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
For the same reason as commit 02d699f1f464 ("include/linux/kconfig.h:
ese macros which are already defined"), it is better to use macros
IS_BUILTIN() and IS_MODULE() for defining IS_REACHABLE().
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
---
include/linux/kconfig.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/kconfig.h b/include/linux/kconfig.h
index b33c779..e0182e1 100644
--- a/include/linux/kconfig.h
+++ b/include/linux/kconfig.h
@@ -41,8 +41,8 @@
* This is similar to IS_ENABLED(), but returns false when invoked from
* built-in code when CONFIG_FOO is set to 'm'.
*/
-#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (config_enabled(option) || \
- (config_enabled(option##_MODULE) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
+#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (IS_BUILTIN(option) || \
+ (IS_MODULE(option) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
/*
* IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO) evaluates to 1 if CONFIG_FOO is set to 'y' or 'm',
--
1.9.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rH5Jf-7nV-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1414829 |
Side note:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>
> -#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (config_enabled(option) || \
> - (config_enabled(option##_MODULE) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
> +#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (IS_BUILTIN(option) || \
> + (IS_MODULE(option) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
Is that "config_enabled(MODULE)" actually sensible?
The whole "config_enabled()" thing is designed for config options. But
"MODULE" is not a config option, it's per-file build option ("are we
now building for a module" vs "are we building built-in code").
The code clearly works, but it smells a bit confusing to me. Talking
about "config" of MODULE makes me think CONFIG_MODULES ("are modular
builds enabled") rather than "am I currently building a module".
I wonder if we should have something like
#ifdef MODULE
#define BUILDING_MODULES 1
#else
#define BUILDING_MODULES 0
#endif
and then using (IS_MODULE(option) && BUILDING_MODULES) to clarify the test.
Because when I first looked at the patch and didn't think about it any
more, my initial reaction was "why is it checking whether modules are
enabled - if IS_MODULE() is true, then _obviously_ modules are
enabled?"
But maybe that's just me.
Linus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 23:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rHazf-1ZA-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1415270 |
Hi Linus,
2016-06-07 1:36 GMT+09:00 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>:
> Side note:
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>>
>> -#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (config_enabled(option) || \
>> - (config_enabled(option##_MODULE) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
>> +#define IS_REACHABLE(option) (IS_BUILTIN(option) || \
>> + (IS_MODULE(option) && config_enabled(MODULE)))
>
> Is that "config_enabled(MODULE)" actually sensible?
>
> The whole "config_enabled()" thing is designed for config options. But
> "MODULE" is not a config option, it's per-file build option ("are we
> now building for a module" vs "are we building built-in code").
I thought of this, too.
Because config_enabled() is so useful,
maybe people tend to abuse it.
I see one case where config_enabled() is used
for a non-config macro.
#define __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, sec) \
__cond_export_sym(sym, sec, config_enabled(__KSYM_##sym))
Assuming we can do something with that,
ultimately I'd like to ban the use of
config_enabled() outside of include/linux/kconfig.h
I already started this work:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/mips/msg63759.html
> The code clearly works, but it smells a bit confusing to me. Talking
> about "config" of MODULE makes me think CONFIG_MODULES ("are modular
> builds enabled") rather than "am I currently building a module".
>
> I wonder if we should have something like
>
> #ifdef MODULE
> #define BUILDING_MODULES 1
> #else
> #define BUILDING_MODULES 0
> #endif
>
> and then using (IS_MODULE(option) && BUILDING_MODULES) to clarify the test.
MODULE is defined / undefined per file.
So, I think BUILDING_MODULE makes more sense than BUILDING_MODULES.
> Because when I first looked at the patch and didn't think about it any
> more, my initial reaction was "why is it checking whether modules are
> enabled - if IS_MODULE() is true, then _obviously_ modules are
> enabled?"
>
> But maybe that's just me.
>
> Linus
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 00:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] kconfig.h: use already defined macros for IS_REACHABLE() define |
| Message-ID | <rHaSB-2px-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1415499 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Because config_enabled() is so useful, > maybe people tend to abuse it. > > I see one case where config_enabled() is used > for a non-config macro. > > #define __EXPORT_SYMBOL(sym, sec) \ > __cond_export_sym(sym, sec, config_enabled(__KSYM_##sym)) Here the need is for a macro that returns 1 or 0 whether given symbol is defined or not, exactly as explained in the comment above the definition for config_enabled() which in itself has nothing to do with config. So maybe config_enabled() should be renamed to __is_defined() or similar, and then config_enabled() or its replacement defined in termps of it. Nicolas
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web