Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: drop bogus default values

From: Paul Bolle
Date: Thu Mar 12 2015 - 08:42:02 EST

On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 12:36 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.03.15 at 13:11, <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> I can't see any, but since as long as there is a visible prompt this
> doesn't have any other bad effect than bloating the Kconfig file
> and making its parsing a tiny bit slower, I don't care that much
> about those (originally I had started a patch removing those too,
> but gave up after a while).

Well, unless someone comes up with a valid reason to add "default
n" (and, again, I don't think what you ran into is a valid reason) we
might instead bloat a bit by adding a warning for it. That
should at least stop new instances from being added.

I wonder whether Michal knows of a valid reason to use "default n"? What
are Jan and I missing here?

Paul Bolle

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at