From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yh0-f52.google.com (mail-yh0-f52.google.com [209.85.213.52]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253CB6B0036 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:28:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yh0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i72so12835993yha.39 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:28:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z48si7785691yha.6.2013.12.05.10.28.04 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:28:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w10so24959537pde.6 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:28:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sima.baymani@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:28:03 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Dec 3 (mm/Kconfig) From: Sima Baymani Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, aquini@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gang.chen@asianux.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > 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? 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: email@kvack.org