From: Adrian Bunk Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 00:18:48 +0000 Subject: Re: architectures with their own "config PCMCIA" Message-Id: <20040812001848.GW26174@fs.tum.de> List-Id: References: <20040807170122.GM17708@fs.tum.de> <20040807181051.A19250@infradead.org> <20040807172518.GA25169@fs.tum.de> <200408072013.01168.arnd@arndb.de> <20040811201725.GJ26174@fs.tum.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Roman Zippel Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Christoph Hellwig , wli@holomorphy.com, davem@redhat.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux390@de.ibm.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:45:21PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, Hi Roman, > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Roman, is it intentional that PCMCIA!=n is true if there's no PCMCIA > > option, or is it simply a bug? > > Yes, undefined symbols have a (string) value of "" . Maybe it's time to > add a warning for such comparisons... is there any strong reason why undefined symbols aren't equivalent to symbols with a value of "n"? Many !=n seems to be bogus (especially ones from the automatic transition to the new Kconfig) and I'll audit them. But rewriting valid FOO!=n to (FOO=y || FOO=m) doesn't sound like an improvement. > bye, Roman cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed