Re: def_bool n

Previous thread: [GIT PULL] sh updates for 2.6.27-rc2 by Paul Mundt on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 4:17 am. (1 message)

Next thread: sysrq+t doesn't work for some threads by Bernd Schubert on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 5:47 am. (1 message)
From: Jan Beulich
Subject: def_bool n
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008 - 5:29 am

Could either of you clarify what the significance of such a construct
(encountered several times in arch/x86/Kconfig alone) is?

At first, I noticed it only with GENERIC_LOCKBREAK (it is my
understanding that this block can go away entirely), but then realized
that with the bool->def_bool conversion this was introduced in various
other places (where "default n" was used before, which seems as
pointless a statement). Am I missing something?

Thanks, Jan


--

From: Sam Ravnborg
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008 - 2:16 pm

No.

arch/x86/Kconfig:
config GENERIC_LOCKBREAK
        def_bool n

I assume this is solely to document that x86 does
NOT use GENERIC_LOCKBREAK as it serves no other purpose.

Notice that we may see:

init/Kconfig:
config FOO
	def_bool y

arch/$ARCH/Kconfig:
config FOO
	def_bool n

And this will result in setting FOO to the last seen value.
All the HAVE_* stuff is btw to avoid such double definition
of a config symbol.

GENERIC_LOCKBREAK is another candidate.

	Sam
--

Previous thread: [GIT PULL] sh updates for 2.6.27-rc2 by Paul Mundt on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 4:17 am. (1 message)

Next thread: sysrq+t doesn't work for some threads by Bernd Schubert on Monday, August 4, 2008 - 5:47 am. (1 message)