On 12/7/17 10:54 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:21:53PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 10:13:15PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> Until we have more than one possible source of configuration, >>> there is no need to emit the only possibility and clutter >>> the output. We can decide how it should all look when we >>> get more than one source. >>> >>> Apply some i18n to the config description, though. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Looks ok, I guess, >> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> (I wonder why Dave put the printf in there, but I'll let him answer that.) > > Because I wanted to demonstrate to everyone where the config file > based defaults should be introduced. i.e. before the printf that > says where the defaults were sourced from! Sure, and having the infrastructure and the big comment helps, and it's all still there. But we shouldn't emit configuration details about non-configurable things to every user in the meantime, just to remind developers what to do next. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
