On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 04:06:10AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Is this what you had in mind? I don't have any way to test on a > > system not supporting CONFIG_PREEMPT, but seems to work on x86. > > Yes, looks fine. > > > +config PREEMPT_RCU > > + bool "Preemptible RCU" > > + depends on PREEMPT > > + default n > > "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. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
