linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Preempt-RCU: Implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:49:47 +0100 (CET)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	ego@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Ted Tso <tytso@...ibm.com>, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, bunk@...nel.org,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...edesktop.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Preempt-RCU: Implementation

Hi,

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > "default n" isn't really necessary, it's already the default.
> 
> Fair enough.  But something like 125 Kconfig files in 2.6.25-rc3 have
> at least one "default n" in them, so is it worth getting rid of it?
> Seems to me that the explicit "default n" has some substantial readability
> advantages.

The inverse would mean all the other configs have a readability 
disadvantage.
In most cases they can be simply removed, only in form of 'def_bool n' it
makes somewhat sense.

bye, Roman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/