On 12/13/2017 11:51 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:23:38PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 09:54:19 +0100 >> Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Stephen Hemminger >>> <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Will this break existing configs? >>> >>> I don't think so. Last time I did some similar changes, the kbuild >>> test robot found some warnings on some configurations, I hope >>> it will find problems (if any) for that series too (this one is not alone, >>> I've got a bunch of other similar patches in-flight) >>> >>> Thanks >> >> NAK >> >> Let me give a concrete example of how this will break users. >> >> 1. Assume user has a working .config file in their kernel build directory >> which builds a kernel that works on Hyper-V. >> >> 2. Add your patch (or assume it makes into a later version). >> >> 3. User then does >> >> $ make oldconfig >> scripts/kconfig/conf --oldconfig Kconfig >> * >> * Restart config... >> * >> * >> * Microsoft Hyper-V guest support >> * >> Microsoft Hyper-V guest support (HYPERV_MENU) [N/y] (NEW) >> >> If they hit return, the default value is not enabling HyperV and they >> will then go on to build a kernel that will not boot on your system. >> >> The default MUST be set to Yes. That should work. > Or you can just not take these types of odd and silly changes to the > Kconfig files, and leave it as-is. I have yet to see the good reason > why these are needed at all. Some of us would like to be able to disable many like drivers at one time instead of having to go down a list of say 20-30 drivers and disable them one at a time. -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
