[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111115185728.GA16643@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:57:28 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: How to remove 2000+ lines from 400+ defconfig files?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 07:39:51PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> >> The only ones I'd have objections to taking immediately are those which are
> >> actually still referenced somewhere in the code.
> >> For those, either taking them through appropriate maintainers, or having
> >> their Acked-by would be required.
> >
> > I don't mind. That shouldn't be a lot of extra work for me.
> >
> > But, I do have a naive question: are defconfigs meant to be drop in
> > replacements for .config files or is one supposed to first feed them to
> > the config tools to generate an up to date .config?
>
> defconfig files are used as input of the conf program.
It seems to me that these files have always been very neglected.
Perhaps a better solution would be to have 'make defconfig' generate them itself.
This would mean adding addition 'default' parameters to a ton of
existing options, and possibly also some 'if CONFIG_$ARCH' magic, but
that sounds like it would be more future-proof, and would also serve
as better documentation. (As a distro kernel maintainer, the number of
times I've hit undocumented "enable this on arch x, but leave disabled on arch y" is annoying).
Dave
--
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