svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf

[John Baldwin]

On Friday 24 October 2008 09:27:03 am Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:26:43AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
> > Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> writes:
> > > We already have a better mechanism for including config files.  We
> > > should be using that instead of poluting another port with the
> > > DEFAULTS file.
> > 
> > Should we even have DEFAULTS files at all?  IMHO they just confuse
> > matters by introducing "stealth" options into your config.
> 
> I tend to second this.  I always try to get everything possible out of
> my kernel to modules, and thus was surprised to see io.ko and mem.ko
> fail to load because they were silently included into my custom kernel.
> 
> I understand that some things like 'device isa' and
> 'device npx' aren't really optional, but if something is useful to have,
> but can be loaded as a module, it belongs to GENERIC rather than
> DEFAULTS.  Killing the latter altogether and throwing a comment that
> says particular option or device is mandatory in GENERIC is probably
> even better (and more transparent).

The one thing I think DEFAULTS is useful for are replacing NO_FOO options with 
FOO options.  That is, if someone wants to turn a feature on by default, I'd 
rather them put 'options FOO' in DEFAULTS rather than rename all the 
#ifdef's,e tc. to '#ifndef NO_FOO'.

-- 
John Baldwin