Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] checkpatch: add Kconfig 'default n' test

[Paul Bolle]

On di, 2016-06-07 at 21:16 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 20:10 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > > Is it obvious that a Kconfig has "default n" ?
> > > This seems to work, but is this useful?
>
> While sending patch for upstream, I saw maintainers request it to be
> removed. So I think it might worth adding check to it.
> Some examples from google:
> 
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-September/1
> 20733.html
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/16/153
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/23/657

There's one rather subtle case where setting "default n" is, sort of,
useful. See lkml.kernel.org/r/<178407860.0zoJnDfCo1@tacticalops> . 

(I seem to remember disagreeing here. Ie, in my view setting defaults
for a specific Kconfig symbol at two different places is confusing at
best. People probably weren't convinced by my objections. I also
remember diving into this by looking at the various places where a
Kconfig symbol was being set twice. I must have ended that endeavor when
it became clear to me I was't making any progress.)

Even though there's  a corner case where "default n" is useful, it could
still be worth to add a checkpatch check that warns about it. But I
can't say I feel strongly about this either way.


Paul Bolle