From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 24 22:49:47 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42261065672; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:49:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB378FC12; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:49:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9OMle5T003504; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:47:40 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:47:40 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20081024.164740.74747369.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <200810241031.08780.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <868wsewzos.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20081024132703.GA81378@FreeBSD.org> <200810241031.08780.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: danfe@freebsd.org, marcel@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:49:47 -0000 From: John Baldwin Subject: Re: svn commit: r184193 - in head/sys: arm/conf conf Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:31:07 -0400 > 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 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'. Wouldn't it be better to move to a system where we explicitly include std.i386 and have them all defined there? We already encourage stuff like this with advice to include GENERIC with nodev... Warner