[LTP] [PATCH v4 4/4] lib: add any kconfig to match the expected value function document

[Pengfei Xu]

Hi Xu,
  Due to memory copy, there is some bit and display issue in last string.

  So for your question, for CONFIG_A|CONFIG_B without expect value, maybe y
  or m.
  We could add it with below style:
  "CONFIG_A|CONFIG_B|NA", and add it into guidelines, NA will not be solved,
  actually you could fill with any string after last '|'.
  Is it ok?

  Thanks!

On 2019-12-20 at 14:00:00 +0800, Yang Xu wrote:
> Hi Pengfei
> > Hi Xu,
> > 
> > 
> > > Before your patch, I know we can use the following two formats kconfigs
> > > CONFIG_A
> > > CONFIG_A=y/m/v
> > > after your patch set, we can use the following three formats kconfigs
> > > CONFIG_A
> > > CONFIG_A=y/m/v
> > > CONFIG_A|CONFIGB=y/m/v
> > > As the usual extend logic,  we think  CONFIGA|CONFIGB is also ok. But in
> > > fact, we use "|" or "=" to delim string. So  we can't parse CONFIGA|CONFIGB
> > > correctly. So, if we can tell user or developer about this in here, it will
> > > be better.
> > > 
> > > ps: we can add configA| config B test in your third patch.
> > > 
> >    Actually present patch could support CONFIG_A|CONFIG_B style, and it works
> > well, you could change "CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP|CONFIG_X86_UMIP=y" to
> > "CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP|CONFIG_X86_UMIP" in test_kconfig.c and have a try. : )
> "CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP|CONFIG_X86_UMIP" is useful because
> CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP is in our kernel configs . If you use
> "CONFIG_X86_UMIP|CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP", it will report error.
> 
> Kind Regards
> Yang Xu
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > > Kind Regards
> > > Yang Xu
> > > >    #include "tst_test.h"
> > > >    static const char *kconfigs[] = {
> > > > -	"CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP",
> > > > +	"CONFIG_EXT4_FS=y",
> > > > +	"CONFIG_MMU",
> > > > +	"CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP|CONFIG_X86_UMIP=y",
> > > >    	NULL
> > > >    };
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>