From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932161AbbCLMl6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:41:58 -0400 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews05.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.8]:59601 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews05.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753979AbbCLMlz (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:41:55 -0400 Message-ID: <1426164113.5304.54.camel@x220> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: drop bogus default values From: Paul Bolle To: Jan Beulich Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Michal Marek , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 13:41:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5501966D0200007800068FFB@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <5500584D02000078000688F5@mail.emea.novell.com> <1426162307.5304.41.camel@x220> <5501966D0200007800068FFB@mail.emea.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2015 12:41:53.0541 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB08CB50:01D05CC1] X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? Paul Bolle