Re: [PATCH] Kconfig: drop bogus default values

From: Sam Ravnborg
Date: Thu Mar 12 2015 - 14:56:57 EST

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:41:53PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote:
> 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?
I for one cannot figure out a reason right now.
And if we want a warning then kconfig could be extended to
warn on this case - this is better than checkpatch.
This mandates that all existing uses are fixed first so we do not
see a tons of warnings in existing code.
But that should be a boring but trivial thing to do when the warning
is in place.

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