>>> On 23.03.15 at 22:08, <walch.martin@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 12 March 2015 13:11:47 Paul Bolle 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. > > Your memory is right. It is rarely used, but there is an application for > using a plain "default n": to overwrite an existing other default value. > Particularly in one special case this is desired: Let us say there is a > symbol that may lack a visible prompt, but has the default value y set in > a Kconfig file that is used across all architectures. If there is a single > architecture that must have the default value n then it is possible to > override the default y in the global file with a default n in the > architecture specific file. > > A real world case is PCI_QUIRKS in the mainline kernel: > > init/Kconfig:1554: default y > arch/s390/Kconfig:59: def_bool n > > When setting PCI!=n && EXPERT=n then on each architecture PCI_QUIRKS=y > except on s390 where PCI_QUIRKS=n. But iirc such redundant defaults yield warnings (or at least at some point in the past they did). Jan -- 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
