linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] watchdog: add watchdog pretimeout framework

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]

Message-ID: <57582363.8050406@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:53:39 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>
Cc:	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
	Robin Gong <b38343@...escale.com>,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] watchdog: add watchdog pretimeout framework

On 06/08/2016 06:37 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:

>>>
>>> +comment "Watchdog Pretimeout Governors"
>>> +
>>> +config WATCHDOG_PRETIMEOUT_GOV
>>> +	bool "Enable watchdog pretimeout governors"
>>> +	default n
>>
>> I don't think 'default n" is needed.
>>
>
> No strict objections, but probably 'default n' may save quite many
> lines in defconfigs.
>

I always wondered why it would be necessary to say "default n".
What is the difference between "default n" and no explicit default ?

Guenter