On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 06:24:29AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > user-configurable kernel setting, it should not have a
> > configuration macro name starting with "CONFIG_" -- that should be
> > reserved for configurable settings defined in Kconfig files.
>
> Yup, and that's exactly what we use them for.
>
> However, we don't anyone to use them in mainline because they are
> for debugging or features that aren't in mainline, but they are not
> easily of ussefully separable from the core XFS code. Hence we use
> CONFIG_XFS_??? options that you can't turn on in mainline to
> enforce this - making them CONFIG_XFS_??? options means we don't
> have to maintain different code in the dev tree and mainline and IMO
> that is a Good Thing.
>
> > if this is strictly
> > an internal debugging macro you're using in-house, it should be called
> > "XFS_DEBUG" as opposed to "CONFIG_" to avoid any confusion and
> > potential future name clashes.
>
> Clashes with what? Someone has suggested moving the X font server
> into the kernel? ;)
sure, i realize that's unlikely but, given that the entire kbuild
structure is based on adding "CONFIG_" prefixes to everything, it just
seems safer to avoid using that prefix for anything not related
directly to a Kconfig file.
it's kind of like telling people not to prefix their kernel variables
with "__". if they do, it might still work, but is it really worth
taking the chance? :-)
anyway, it's your call.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://www.fsdev.dreamhosters.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================
|