Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
quoted text
> On Saturday 15 September 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 11:44:59AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Stefan Richter wrote:
>>>> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 04:11:45PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>>>>> Perfect is in the eye of the beholder.  You would consequently have to
>>>>>> add such options into all menus which contain scsi low-level providers.
>>>>> Kconfig is a user interface, so perfect is what is best for the
>>>>> kconfig users.
>>>> Duplicate options with different names in different menus, but which all
>>>> do the same, --- is this the best for users?
>>> I recognize it's a rhetorical question :)  The answer is of course "no".
>>>
>>> I hope the other participants of this thread register the severe 
>>> disinclination of the maintainers to change this stuff, as this is a 
>>> classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill[1].
>>>
>>> For the -vast majority- of people configuring the kernel, this is not a 
>>> problem.  Kernel people are -expected- to know what they're doing, 
>> I doubt your claim is true since the vast majority of kconfig users
>> are most likely not kernel developers.
> 
> Yes, we shouldn't be needlessly raising the bar for power users.

In this case, no bar is being "raised," for any user.


quoted text
>> @Greg:
>> Do you have any numbers regarding how your "Linux Kernel in a Nutshell" 
>> is selling?
>> Even download numbers?
>>
>>> especially when switching from one major subsystem to another.
>> It's not only about switching, the same problems awaits people when 
>> configuring a kernel for their hardware the first time.
> 
> *nods*
> 
>>> Therefore, all this is IMO wasted effort and hot air.  There are far more 
>>> important issues to deal with.
>> Why don't we dump kconfig and write the .config by hand?  ;-)
>>
>> More seriously:
>> Yes, there are many other important issues in the kernel.
>> But not fixing kconfig UI problems doesn't fix these issues faster.
> 
> Agreed, and actually not fixing Kconfig UI problems will make the other
> issues being fixed *slower* (because they result in *increased* workload
> on developers' side).

Irrelevant in this case, because there is no increased workload on the 
developer's side.


quoted text
>> I have seen people running into problems because some required 
>> option wasn't set - in the simplest cases things like IDE without DMA 
>> because a help text wasn't updated when more hardware support was added 
>> to a driver.
> 
> This is why nowadays IDE DMA support is automatically selected by IDE
> host drivers that need it - a big relief for everybody.

Please don't take this any more off-topic than it already is.

IDE DMA option was vastly different.  The options in question here 
affect whether or not you have a block device to use -- something that 
is immediately obviously and corrected quickly.


quoted text
>> You might not care about the kconfig users.
>> But other people do.
> 
> ...and even if their attempts/solutions may not be proper yet they should
> not be discouraged to work on these problems...

There is no problem, in this case.

Otherwise, there would be more than a complaint or two per year.

	Jeff


-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/