[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803042147520.2723@scrub.home>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists