Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:14:25 +0200 (CEST) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: Shouldn't kconfig defaults match recommendations in help text? |
| |
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:33:09PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > Which brings me to another thing regarding configs and defaults - there > > does not seem to be much relation between the defaults in the various > > Kconfig files and the settings in arch/<foo>/defconfig which puzzles me, > > especially since "make defconfig" seems to use the stuff from > > arch/<foo>/defconfig and not what's specified in Kconfig... > > Wouldn't it make sense to update the defconfig's to match the Kconfig's > > when I make these changes? > > defconfig is only subject for changes by arch-maintainers. > And defaults provided in Kconfig is mainly valid for i386 anyway - > so are the Kconfig help text. > Ok, thank you for enlightening me on that. So defaults are chosen first from defconfig, and then from Kconfig for options not present in defconfig.
I guess I should limit myself to i386 for this or maybe just abandon it alltogether. It still seems like a good idea though to make the defaults (at least on i386) match the help text recommendations, but if defconfig is used over Kconfig and defconfig is more or less off-limits, and changing Kconfig would result in wrong defaults on other archs (which would then cause more work for arch maintainers with updating their defconfig), then maybe it's really not such a good idea after all to go about changing this.
I'll stay away from making these changes for now unless I run across some really obvious and non-problematic cases.
-- Jesper Juhl
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |