Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] checkpatch: add Kconfig 'default n' test | From | Paul Bolle <> | Date | Wed, 08 Jun 2016 21:42:40 +0200 |
| |
On di, 2016-06-07 at 21:16 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 20:10 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > > Is it obvious that a Kconfig has "default n" ? > > > This seems to work, but is this useful? > > While sending patch for upstream, I saw maintainers request it to be > removed. So I think it might worth adding check to it. > Some examples from google: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-September/1 > 20733.html > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/16/153 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/23/657
There's one rather subtle case where setting "default n" is, sort of, useful. See lkml.kernel.org/r/<178407860.0zoJnDfCo1@tacticalops> .
(I seem to remember disagreeing here. Ie, in my view setting defaults for a specific Kconfig symbol at two different places is confusing at best. People probably weren't convinced by my objections. I also remember diving into this by looking at the various places where a Kconfig symbol was being set twice. I must have ended that endeavor when it became clear to me I was't making any progress.)
Even though there's a corner case where "default n" is useful, it could still be worth to add a checkpatch check that warns about it. But I can't say I feel strongly about this either way.
Paul Bolle
| |