On 05/29/2013 11:30 AM, Marc Dietrich wrote: > On Wednesday 29 May 2013 09:29:48 Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/29/2013 07:38 AM, Marc Dietrich wrote: >>> Am Dienstag, 28. Mai 2013, 15:30:29 schrieb Stephen Warren: >>>> On 05/28/2013 11:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> This simply rebuilds tegra_defconfig on top of next-20130520. As such, >>>>> it >>>>> should introduce no changes; simply moving entries around due to Kconfig >>>>> ordering changes. The apparent exceptions are: ... >>> This way we would have a >>> better chance to have a zero diff between defconfig and tegra_defconfig, >>> e.g. not like 3.10 is now. >> >> I don't understand this; what is "defconfig" if not "tegra_defconfig"? > > defconfig: make tegra_defconfig; make saveconfig > > diff -u tegra_defconfig defconfig Oh right. Yes, if you do that in the for-3.11/defconfig branch itself, there will be diffs. That will always be true; that branch won't have any of the new drivers/features that will be added in linux-next and the next mainline kernel, so at the very least you'd end up removing some options doing that. I expect most people editing defconfig will be doing it based on some linux-next version rather than right on top of for-3.11/defconfig, so they can pick up, enable, and test new drivers or features. If you run the commands above in next-20130529, there should be a zero diff (unless someone made some Kconfig changes between next-20130528 and next-20130529 anyway). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
