RE: [PATCH] Unify CONFIG_LBD and CONFIG_LSF handling

[Matt LaPlante]

> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 04:20:53PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > I don't really understand the complaint.  If <rare condition applies>,
> > say Y, otherwise say N.  If unsure, say Y.  The default is N.  Perhaps
> > all that's needed is to spell out the implications of saying Y?  How
> > about:
> >
> > 	  This option allows 32-bit systems to support files larger than
> > 	  2 Terabytes, at a cost of increased kernel memory usage.  Most
> > 	  people do not need the overhead and should answer N to this
> > 	  question, but if you do not understand this question, answering
> > 	  Y is safest.
> >
> > Or is that too verbose?
> 
> How likely is it that someone who doesn't understand the question needs
> this option? I think N is a safe answer here.
> 
> bye, Roman

This is the impression I had as well.  Even if you disagree though, I was
equally confused by the fact that if we say to answer Y as default, why is
the kconfig default already N?

-
Matt LaPlante


-
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/