From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Finn Thain Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] scsi: Don't select SCSI_PROC_FS by default Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 09:50:24 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: References: <2de15293-b9be-4d41-bc67-a69417f27f7a@free.fr> <621306ee-7ab6-9cd2-e934-94b3d6d731fc@acm.org> <017cf3cf-ecd8-19c2-3bbd-7e7c28042c3c@free.fr> <48912bc0-8c79-408d-7ed2-c127b99b8bcc@interlog.com> <5d9d0851-f864-6d78-7e7d-9d018bea5704@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5d9d0851-f864-6d78-7e7d-9d018bea5704@free.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Gonzalez Cc: Douglas Gilbert , Bart Van Assche , James Bottomley , Martin Petersen , SCSI , LKML , Christoph Hellwig List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > On 21/06/2019 01:43, Finn Thain wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019, Marc Gonzalez wrote: > > > >> How likely is it that distro kernels would *not* enable CHR_DEV_SG? > >> (Distros tend to enable everything, and then some.) > > > > How likely is it that embedded developers would *not* disable > > CHR_DEV_SG? They tend to disable everything, and then enable only what > > they need. > > I don't see where you're going with this line of reasoning? > Exactly. This sort of reasoning goes nowhere. > Below is my current (as of next-20190612) defconfig. > > Notice the options marked as "not set". These are options that are > enabled by default (and which I've disabled). > > Everyone thinks "their" option is critical (and it is, *to them*) but, > in fact, few really are -- universally. The relevant policy is documented in Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt. If there are useful generalizations about the choice of defaults for Kconfig symbols (or changing those defaults) that are not documented then they probably should be. --