From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e4.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 946BEDDFDF for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:12:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5DICATG032764 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:12:10 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m5DICAjY163660 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:12:10 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m5DIC9LV024039 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:12:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Update defconfigs for CONFIG_HUGETLB From: Adam Litke To: Adrian Bunk In-Reply-To: <20080612193638.GB17231@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> References: <1213296540.17108.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1213296945.17108.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080612193638.GB17231@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:12:08 -0400 Message-Id: <1213380728.15016.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: npiggin@suse.de, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, nacc@us.ibm.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Eric B Munson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 22:36 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 02:55:45PM -0400, Adam Litke wrote: > > Update all defconfigs that specify a default configuration for hugetlbfs. > > There is now only one option: CONFIG_HUGETLB. Replace the old > > CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE and CONFIG_HUGETLBFS options with the new one. I found no > > cases where CONFIG_HUGETLBFS and CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE had different values so > > this patch is large but completely mechanical: > >... > > 335 files changed, 335 insertions(+), 385 deletions(-) > >... > > Please don't do this kind of patches - it doesn't bring any advantage > but can create tons of patch conflicts. > > The next time a defconfig gets updated it will anyway automatically be > fixed, and for defconfigs that aren't updated it doesn't create any > problems to keep them as they are today until they might one day get > updated. Thanks for taking a look. I am not sure if I have ever seen a defconfig patch hit the mailing list before and I was wondering how those changes happen. In any case I am perfectly happy to drop this huge patch and stick with just the first one. -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center