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

[Yang Xu]

Hi Pengfei
> 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?
It sounds reasonable. I think it is ok.

Kind Regards
Yang Xu
> 
>    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
>>>>>     };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>