INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC
xcllnt at mac.com
Fri Jan 15 18:59:42 UTC 2010
On Jan 15, 2010, at 10:05 AM, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : Is this really so hard?
> Yes. Didn't you read the message I posted about why this is hard?
No, I didn't.
> There would be a ton of lexer and parser work to make this happen, as
> well as a lot of work to internal data structures to keep the file as
> parsed, rather than as convenient to do config's job. It is a big
PITA != hard. If we're not willing to put in the effort to fix
something, I don't think we should call it hard to do. We should
call it like it is: non-trivial, involved or significant. Heck,
we can even call it a major undertaking. But hard? No, I don't
think it's hard at all.
> I think the way forward isn't as you suggest.
Fine. Just stop trying to classify people as a basis for what
behaviour we should implement. It never works...
> we really make it include everything, then -C can go away, the weird
> pseudo thing we have can go away, and we know get everything. And it
> is easy to implement...
How does this address the "I don't want everything, I just want
my CVS keyword" example? How does it handle the delicate balance
between space vs. functionality that exists on embedded and/or
low-end platforms. An all inclusive implementation seems not to
take that into account that well. Sure, you can compress but
then you add a runtime overhead to uncompress.
In any case: I personally don't use the option so I really should
not get involved. If I were to implement something from scratch
though, I would treat it as a C file: the config file is the source
and you "compile" it into a binary form suitable for inclusion into
the kernel and you have compile-time options that control the binary
output. No comments will be included in that case and there will be
no option for it. But that's just me...
xcllnt at mac.com
More information about the svn-src-head