On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 12:36 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 12.03.15 at 13:11, <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 13:59 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> Default "no" is pretty pointless for options without (visible) prompts: > > > > Related: is there ever a situation where using "default n" or "def_bool > > n" makes sense (whether or not the entry has a prompt)? I think I once > > thought of one but I can't remember it at all, so I guess my memory is > > fooling me. > > I can't see any, but since as long as there is a visible prompt this > doesn't have any other bad effect than bloating the Kconfig file > and making its parsing a tiny bit slower, I don't care that much > about those (originally I had started a patch removing those too, > but gave up after a while). Well, unless someone comes up with a valid reason to add "default n" (and, again, I don't think what you ran into is a valid reason) we might instead bloat checkpatch.pl a bit by adding a warning for it. That should at least stop new instances from being added. I wonder whether Michal knows of a valid reason to use "default n"? What are Jan and I missing here? Paul Bolle -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
