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

["ananth at in dot ibm dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From ananth at in dot ibm dot com  2007-07-10 04:53 -------
Subject: Re:  UPROBES_SSOL and URETPROBES must depend on UPROBES in Kconfig

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:52:47PM -0000, jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com wrote:
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From jkenisto at us dot ibm dot com  2007-07-09 20:52 -------
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > In which case, we have one of two choices:
> > 
> > a> Make the dependency implicit as we do with kprobes (no KPROBES=y implies no
> > kretprobes either);
> 
> That's pretty much what we're doing now.
> 
> > 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?

> > b> If you want to retain the Kconfig entries for SSOL and URETPROBES, put in an
> > explicit dependency for the two on UPROBES. Per Kconfig language semantics, you
> > shouldn't be able to select a dependent feature without an explicit dependency
> > specified in the Kconfig file.
> 
> Again, support for SSOL or uretprobes is not something we need/want the user to
> select.
> 
> > 
> > Need to choose one; You can't have both :-)
> 
> I disagree.  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.
 
> 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.

Ananth


-- 


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.