On 08/07/2017 02:47 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 08/07/2017 12:52 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>> Still not quite following why you're updating all the defconfigs. I'd >>> make sure the Kconfig default settings are right, and leave updating >>> the defconfig to arch/device maintainers. It adds a lot of noise to >>> the patch. >> >> Hmm ... I thought it was up to the patch submitter to make sure that >> 'make defconfig' still worked? Are you sure I can leave that broken? >> >> /me *really* doesn't want to get yelled at by every arch maintainer. > > No. Don't break systems, but at the same time, can't you use the > default value in Kconfig to set it properly so the old defconfig > settings don't really matter? > > Apologies if I've not followed the issue properly, but it is odd, as > I'm not sure I can think of a patch I've seen before that had so much > defconfig noise in it. Again, I've not looked into it closely, so it > may just be my own ignorance, but it makes me suspect there is a > better way. > peterz? Want to offer a suggestion? The issue is that I'm changing a bool config option to an int and that impacts all the arch's defconfigs. John points out that this is a lot of churn and we're both wondering if there's a better way to do the configs. P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
