From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from asavdk3.altibox.net ([109.247.116.14]:47874 "EHLO asavdk3.altibox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753043AbbCLS4u (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:56:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:51:29 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: drop bogus default values Message-ID: <20150312185128.GB22552@ravnborg.org> References: <5500584D02000078000688F5@mail.emea.novell.com> <1426162307.5304.41.camel@x220> <5501966D0200007800068FFB@mail.emea.novell.com> <1426164113.5304.54.camel@x220> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1426164113.5304.54.camel@x220> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Paul Bolle Cc: Jan Beulich , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Michal Marek , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:41:53PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 12:36 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 12.03.15 at 13:11, wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 13:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> Default "no" is pretty pointless for options without (visible) prompts: > > > > > > Related: is there ever a situation where using "default n" or "def_bool > > > n" makes sense (whether or not the entry has a prompt)? I think I once > > > thought of one but I can't remember it at all, so I guess my memory is > > > fooling me. > > > > I can't see any, but since as long as there is a visible prompt this > > doesn't have any other bad effect than bloating the Kconfig file > > and making its parsing a tiny bit slower, I don't care that much > > about those (originally I had started a patch removing those too, > > but gave up after a while). > > Well, unless someone comes up with a valid reason to add "default > n" (and, again, I don't think what you ran into is a valid reason) we > might instead bloat checkpatch.pl a bit by adding a warning for it. That > should at least stop new instances from being added. > > I wonder whether Michal knows of a valid reason to use "default n"? What > are Jan and I missing here? I for one cannot figure out a reason right now. And if we want a warning then kconfig could be extended to warn on this case - this is better than checkpatch. This mandates that all existing uses are fixed first so we do not see a tons of warnings in existing code. But that should be a boring but trivial thing to do when the warning is in place. Sam