lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: ARM defconfig files
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 07:48 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > [ Continuation on the "ARM MSM updates" thread ]
    >
    > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Russell King wrote:
    > >
    > > It'd be nice if you'd copy me...
    >
    > Yeah, the thread started out as a "I got really bored with lots of msm
    > patches", and then just expanded into what I think is wrong with the
    > sub-architectures.
    >
    > > On the defconfig files, you may not like them - I don't like the
    > > proliferation of them either. What I've always wanted to see is
    > > one defconfig per class of machines - in other words, one mach-XXX.
    >
    > I can understand that, but at the same time, I do think that the
    > "defconfig" file concept as it is now is just broken. To the point of
    > being unfixable. It's obviously just a copy of the final .config, and it's
    > fundamentally not really readable (and especially not writable) by humans.
    >
    > And that all actually made some sense way-back-when, back when it was
    > originally done - back when our config files were tiny (compared to what
    > they are now), and when it ended up being the default input for the
    > config. It just doesn't make much sense any more. The Kconfig files
    > themselves end up having defaults for the core things, and the non-core
    > things are too many to list/edit sanely in that format.
    >
    > So the original reason I want to remove them is that they are very
    > annoying, but the reasoning that then takes that annoyance and makes me
    > think seriously about removing them despite the inevitable pain factor is
    > that I really don't think we can even use the concept for any better
    > model.
    >
    > Anything better would _have_ to be totally different. And no, I don't
    > think your "diffs against a base" model work either, because while it
    > would make them smaller, it would still make them basically unreadable and
    > uneditable by any human, which means that it's not something we should
    > check in - it's a generated file!

    Have you noticed this ..

    http://ktrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2010/5/17/4571130

    I'm not sure of the goals, but it sounds like it might be relevant.

    Daniel



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-03 18:57    [W:2.090 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site