[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:0.020 / U:31.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site