Re: kms in defconfig

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > 
> > I think defconfig should enable options such that it shows where 
> > upstream kernel is headed, so FWIW +1 for KMS from me.
> 
> I'd actually love to get rid of the stupid defconfig's entirely. 
> They've lost pretty much all relevance over the years, except for 
> specific cases where you might have defconfigs that are for 
> specific platforms.

Yes, exactly. That is the main reason why i NAK-ed a patchset a year 
ago that would have increased the number of defconfigs on x86 
dramatically:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/25/86

The defconfig still has some very minimal meaning: i use it for 
example when i create a default config for a new box. It gives a 
reasonable default and then i double-check the lsmod output against 
the .config and add one or two more drivers. [would be nice to have 
that all automatic btw. - a 'make config-for-this-hardware' type of 
kbuild/kconfig thing.]

It is also a good 'middle-ground' config for tests. My tests first 
do a 32-bit defconfig, then a 64-bit defconfig, then allno, allyes, 
allmod. The defconfig builds quickly so often i can see problems 
based on those first iterations already.

	Ingo
--
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/