[Bug uprobes/4738] UPROBES_SSOL and URETPROBES must depend on UPROBES in Kconfig

["jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

------- Additional Comments From jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com  2007-07-10 21:01 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
...
> > 
> > > this will require that we don't touch the Kconfig files,
> > > except to add CONFIG_UPROBES.
> > 
> > No, it doesn't require that.  See advice from Dave Hansen, appended to this
comment.
> 
> I disagree. If you follow that caveat, then why aren't KRETPROBES and
> JPROBES in Kconfig?

According to Dave H, they should be.

...

> > ...  But I would be willing to consider the following modifications, if
> > you'll test them and verify that (1) they do what you want and (2) SSOL and
> > uretprobes do NOT show up as choices in make *config.  (I ask you cuz you've
> > already been experimenting with Kconfig changes.)
> > 
> > config UPROBES_SSOL
> >         bool
> >         default y
> > +       depends on UPROBES
> > 
> > config URETPROBES
> >         bool
> >         default y
> > +       depends on UPROBES
> 
> This is precisely what I've been asking for (dependency) and have suggested
> in <b> above. I'd be happy with this change.

I'm glad you're happy with that solution.  But your original email on the
subject (6/21/07 6:21 am PDT) suggested something rather different -- including
a prompt string on the "bool" line, which would cause the config options to show
up in make *config.

>  
> > Note that there should be no reason for arch-specific code to test
> > CONFIG_UPROBES_SSOL or CONFIG_URETPROBES.
> 
> But that is orthogonal to this issue. My main point being, if I run
> menuconfig on an arch that doesn't implement SSOL/URETPROBES, I
> shouldn't be able to set them independently of UPROBES *and* more
> importantly, they shouldn't show up if UPROBES=n.

Again (and again and again), they shouldn't show up as user-configurable options
in make *config under any circumstances.

> 
> Ananth
> 

I will add the indicated "depends on UPROBES" lines in the next patch set.  I've
verified that they add the dependency without making the options user-configurable.

Jim

-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4738

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.