[PATCH -mm] compat_binfmt_elf Kconfig

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:53:11PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:08:31PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > This patch should go in immediately after:
> > 
> > 	commit 5e45efc63e33ee2bae9ff4d500b53d3bf86d2b48
> > 	Author: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat.com>
> > 
> > 	    compat_binfmt_elf
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Roland
> > 
> > ---
> > [PATCH] compat_binfmt_elf Kconfig
> > 
> > This adds Kconfig and Makefile bits to build fs/compat_binfmt_elf.c,
> > just added.  Each arch that wants to use this file needs to add a
> > "select COMPAT_BINFMT_ELF" line in its Kconfig bits that enable COMPAT.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/Kconfig.binfmt |    4 ++++
> >  fs/Makefile       |    1 +
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/Kconfig.binfmt b/fs/Kconfig.binfmt
> > index d4fc609..0000000 100644  
> > --- a/fs/Kconfig.binfmt
> > +++ b/fs/Kconfig.binfmt
> > @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ config BINFMT_ELF
> >  	  ld.so (check the file <file:Documentation/Changes> for location and
> >  	  latest version).
> >  
> > +config COMPAT_BINFMT_ELF
> > +	bool
> > +	depends on COMPAT && MMU
> > +
> >  config BINFMT_ELF_FDPIC
> >  	bool "Kernel support for FDPIC ELF binaries"
> >  	default y
> > diff --git a/fs/Makefile b/fs/Makefile
> > index 500cf15..0000000 100644  
> > --- a/fs/Makefile
> > +++ b/fs/Makefile
> > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC)	+= binfmt_misc
> >  obj-y				+= binfmt_script.o
> >  
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF)	+= binfmt_elf.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT_BINFMT_ELF)	+= compat_binfmt_elf.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BINFMT_ELF_FDPIC)	+= binfmt_elf_fdpic.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BINFMT_SOM)	+= binfmt_som.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_BINFMT_FLAT)	+= binfmt_flat.o
> 
> You totally missed the point of having selectable features noted
> by a config symbol named "HAVE_*".
> When you see such a "HAVE_*" you know it is supposed to be selected
> and thus you need to be much more careful about the dependencies.
> 
> And my patch was purely a cooked up example btw and not at all tested.
> Should have been clear about that.
My comment refer to a private mail - but I saw this hit lkml so a bit out
of context.

	Sam