[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Preempt-RCU: Implementation

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > "default n" isn't really necessary, it's already the default.
> Fair enough. But something like 125 Kconfig files in 2.6.25-rc3 have
> at least one "default n" in them, so is it worth getting rid of it?
> Seems to me that the explicit "default n" has some substantial readability
> advantages.

The inverse would mean all the other configs have a readability
In most cases they can be simply removed, only in form of 'def_bool n' it
makes somewhat sense.

bye, Roman

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-04 21:59    [W:0.140 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site