From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] watchdog: add watchdog pretimeout framework To: Guenter Roeck References: <1465321127-19522-1-git-send-email-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <1465321127-19522-5-git-send-email-vladimir_zapolskiy@mentor.com> <20160607214309.GA17129@roeck-us.net> <57581FB2.10806@mentor.com> <57582363.8050406@roeck-us.net> CC: Wim Van Sebroeck , Wolfram Sang , Robin Gong , , From: Vladimir Zapolskiy Message-ID: <5758358A.602@mentor.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:11:06 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57582363.8050406@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: On 08.06.2016 16:53, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 06/08/2016 06:37 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > >>>> >>>> +comment "Watchdog Pretimeout Governors" >>>> + >>>> +config WATCHDOG_PRETIMEOUT_GOV >>>> + bool "Enable watchdog pretimeout governors" >>>> + default n >>> >>> I don't think 'default n" is needed. >>> >> >> No strict objections, but probably 'default n' may save quite many >> lines in defconfigs. >> > > I always wondered why it would be necessary to say "default n". > What is the difference between "default n" and no explicit default ? > I pointed out that it may have impact on defconfig, but experimentally it has no effect. Users of "make oldconfig" get a prompt in both cases as well. Also I haven't found any difference for silentoldconfig, olddefconfig and alldefconfig, I assume explicit "default n" and "def_bool n" can be safely dropped. -- Best wishes, Vladimir