Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Preempt-RCU: Implementation

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > "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.

The inverse would mean all the other configs have a readability 
disadvantage.
In most cases they can be simply removed, only in form of 'def_bool n' it
makes somewhat sense.

bye, Roman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/