On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 11:41:18AM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2025 19:10, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > On 04/09/2025 19:03, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> > > @@ -214,6 +214,11 @@ static void sym_calc_visibility(struct symbol *sym)
> > > struct property *prop;
> > > tristate tri;
> > >
> > > + if (sym->flags & SYMBOL_HIDDEN) {
> > > + sym->visible = yes;
> >
> > ...I just saw the irony here after having already pressed "Send".
> >
> > Let me explain:
> >
> > SYMBOL_HIDDEN is your new flag that indicates that somebody used
> > "transitional" on the config entry.
> >
> > sym->visible is tristate value that gives you the condition for whether
> > a symbol can take on a value -- y/m means the option is visible to the
> > user (hence the name) and thus eligible to have a value assigned to it.
>
> Another small clarification: Replace "is visible to the user" by "can be
> set by .config".
>
> Actual user visibility is controlled by menu_is_visible(), not
> sym->visible, so my patch still doesn't show transitional symbols to the
> user in menuconfig. AFAICT, menu_is_visible() is completely independent
> of sym->visible.
Yeah, and I think this is another very good reason to rename stuff.
> I tested menuconfig/mconf and oldconfig/conf --oldconfig with scripts/
> kconfig/tests/transitional/Kconfig and my patch and it looks correct
> (only the new options are displayed).
Great! Thank you for looking at this. :)
--
Kees Cook
