[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080804211640.GC29902@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:16:41 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: def_bool n
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 01:29:06PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Could either of you clarify what the significance of such a construct
> (encountered several times in arch/x86/Kconfig alone) is?
>
> At first, I noticed it only with GENERIC_LOCKBREAK (it is my
> understanding that this block can go away entirely), but then realized
> that with the bool->def_bool conversion this was introduced in various
> other places (where "default n" was used before, which seems as
> pointless a statement). Am I missing something?
No.
arch/x86/Kconfig:
config GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
def_bool n
I assume this is solely to document that x86 does
NOT use GENERIC_LOCKBREAK as it serves no other purpose.
Notice that we may see:
init/Kconfig:
config FOO
def_bool y
arch/$ARCH/Kconfig:
config FOO
def_bool n
And this will result in setting FOO to the last seen value.
All the HAVE_* stuff is btw to avoid such double definition
of a config symbol.
GENERIC_LOCKBREAK is another candidate.
Sam
--
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