[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiqETvfxW_mG6++9uX4tY5gYbqqXsMURDw1nQy0q0qohw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:34:39 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, soc@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/4] soc: driver updates for 6.11
On Tue, 16 Jul 2024 at 13:16, Bartosz Golaszewski
<bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> TBH it never occurred to me to test pure `make config`. I use `make
> menuconfig` almost exclusively and never noticed this issue for that
> reason.
I use "make oldconfig" for every single machine I boot, because why wouldn't I?
Isn't that what everybody does?
I'm surprised that anybody would re-make their config from scratch
every time, or use some GUI tool.
But yes, I'm also perhaps a bit odd in that I do a *lot* of rebooting
on several machines, and I do it with all these things that come from
outside.
So I see all those cases where random developers added new Kconfig
options, and then I have to go look at *why* it's asking me for some
new driver or whatever, when my hardware hasn't changed.
If I see anything that doesn't default to "n", it immediately raises
my hackles. Why is somebody trying to push new code on my machine that
worked just fine without it?
And if I see the same question repeated multiple times (in just
slightly different guises) for a new feature, I get annoyed.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists