On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi all,
Changes since 20131202:
(Using Randy Dunlaps nice template for these reports)
When generating randconfig, got following warning:
warning: (HWPOISON_INJECT && MEM_SOFT_DIRTY) selects PROC_PAGE_MONITOR
which has unmet direct dependencies (PROC_FS && MMU)
I would have liked to form a patch for it, but not sure whether to
simply add PROC_FS && MMU as dependencies for HWPOISON_INJECT and
MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, or if some other fix would be more suitable?
Config file is attached.
-Sima
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Date: 2013-12-05 00:00:26
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Sima Baymani wrote:
When generating randconfig, got following warning:
warning: (HWPOISON_INJECT && MEM_SOFT_DIRTY) selects PROC_PAGE_MONITOR
which has unmet direct dependencies (PROC_FS && MMU)
I would have liked to form a patch for it, but not sure whether to
simply add PROC_FS && MMU as dependencies for HWPOISON_INJECT and
MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, or if some other fix would be more suitable?
CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT is unrelated, it already depends on CONFIG_PROC_FS.
CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR is obviously only useful for CONFIG_PROC_FS, so
the correct fix would be to make CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY depend on
CONFIG_PROC_FS.
Want to try sending a patch?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM, David Rientjes [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Sima Baymani wrote:
quoted
When generating randconfig, got following warning:
warning: (HWPOISON_INJECT && MEM_SOFT_DIRTY) selects PROC_PAGE_MONITOR
which has unmet direct dependencies (PROC_FS && MMU)
I would have liked to form a patch for it, but not sure whether to
simply add PROC_FS && MMU as dependencies for HWPOISON_INJECT and
MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, or if some other fix would be more suitable?
CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT is unrelated, it already depends on CONFIG_PROC_FS.
CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR is obviously only useful for CONFIG_PROC_FS, so
the correct fix would be to make CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY depend on
CONFIG_PROC_FS.
Want to try sending a patch?
You bet!
However, I have the slightest confusion:
I tested what you suggested by running "make oldconfig", and it does
eliminate the error. However, I can't figure out why it's enough with
adding the dependency for PROC_FS in MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, if
PROC_PAGE_MONITOR depends on both?
-Sima
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Date: 2013-12-05 23:14:36
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Sima Baymani wrote:
quoted
CONFIG_HWPOISON_INJECT is unrelated, it already depends on CONFIG_PROC_FS.
CONFIG_PROC_PAGE_MONITOR is obviously only useful for CONFIG_PROC_FS, so
the correct fix would be to make CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY depend on
CONFIG_PROC_FS.
Want to try sending a patch?
You bet!
However, I have the slightest confusion:
I tested what you suggested by running "make oldconfig", and it does
eliminate the error. However, I can't figure out why it's enough with
adding the dependency for PROC_FS in MEM_SOFT_DIRTY, if
PROC_PAGE_MONITOR depends on both?
"select" will force the option to be selected regardless of its
dependencies, so in this case you have CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY set and
CONFIG_PROC_FS unset and CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY enables PROC_PAGE_MONITOR
which depends on CONFIG_PROC_FS. The warning you're fixing shows the
missing dependency.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>