[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090428062924.GA6769@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:29:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kms in defconfig
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-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
--
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