Re: kms in defconfig

Ingo Molnar
2009-04-28T06:30:37Z

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > I think defconfig should enable options such that it shows where
> > upstream kernel is headed, so FWIW +1 for KMS from me.
>
> I'd actually love to get rid of the stupid defconfig's entirely.
> They've lost pretty much all relevance over the years, except for
> specific cases where you might have defconfigs that are for
> specific platforms.

Yes, exactly. That is the main reason why i NAK-ed a patchset a year
ago that would have increased the number of defconfigs on x86
dramatically:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/25/86

The defconfig still has some very minimal meaning: i use it for
example when i create a default config for a new box. It gives a
reasonable default and then i double-check the lsmod output against
the .config and add one or two more drivers. [would be nice to have
that all automatic btw. - a 'make config-for-this-hardware' type of
kbuild/kconfig thing.]

It is also a good 'middle-ground' config for tests. My tests first
do a 32-bit defconfig, then a 64-bit defconfig, then allno, allyes,
allmod. The defconfig builds quickly so often i can see problems
based on those first iterations already.

Ingo