[linux-yocto] [PATCH 5/5] kconfig: make CONFIG_BLOCK=y part of base config

[Darren Hart]

On 07/28/2012 07:15 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-07-27 05:49 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/27/2012 11:55 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On 12-07-27 12:25 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>>> This has largely no effect, since the default is y, and since
>>>> it is as fundamental as CONFIG_NET, it should be in the base.
>>>> Move it there and delete any other instances of it.  This will
>>>> resolve any BSP configuration audit warnings on CONFIG_BLOCK
>>>> caused by a BSP that includes scsi.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker<paul.gortmaker at windriver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/efi-ext.cfg        | 1 -
>>>>    meta/cfg/kernel-cache/features/scsi/scsi.cfg | 1 -
>>>>    meta/cfg/kernel-cache/ktypes/base/base.cfg   | 1 +
>>>>    3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/efi-ext.cfg b/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/efi-ext.cfg
>>>> index 6371da2..b3bb91a 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/efi-ext.cfg
>>>> +++ b/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/cfg/efi-ext.cfg
>>>> @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@
>>>>    # efi.cfg
>>>>    CONFIG_FB=y
>>>>    CONFIG_VT=y
>>>> -CONFIG_BLOCK=y
>>>
>>> Random question. If we leave this in place, it leaves efi-ext standalone
>>> to be used on any baseline (I'm thinking poky-tiny here) if it has
>>> its own copy of config_block.
>>>
>>> So my question is that we should definitely move this into base as far
>>> as I'm concerned, but do we also want to leave it in efi-ext ? ..
>>>
>>> Any preference Darren ?
>>
>> Seems to me this should move into standard/base (is that what you meant?)
> 
> Yes, base is a good spot for this, so I did mean this part.
> 
>>
>> As BLOCK is not the default of all baselines (ie tiny) it doesn't make
>> sense to me to remove it from fragments that depend on it. I take the
>> approach that my fragments should be complete as much as possible (even
>> if because the scc file includes other scc files to fulfill that).
> 
> And this part as well.
> 
> There are two ways to manage .scc files, make them completely 
> non-overlapping
> and when they are included you get everything you need for the system.
> This is good for consistency and maintenance of options (no dups, no
> overrides, etc), but it takes a lot of control, since shuffling them
> around has to happen periodically due to new uses and features.
> 
> Keeping each feature as specifying everything that it needs to be complete
> is the other option, and the one that I generally prefer. It trades
> a few gotchas with overrides and multiply provided values for features
> that can be included from any other feature and "just work".
> 
> So I'm thinking I'd like to keep config_block in the EFI stub as well
> as having it in base.
> 

Ack.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel