Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763369AbZD1R1X (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:27:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755861AbZD1R1A (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:27:00 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:49102 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755540AbZD1R07 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:26:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm To: Linus Torvalds cc: Tejun Heo , Dave Airlie , Ingo Molnar , LKML Subject: Re: kms in defconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <21d7e9970904270121s1c58365bqc8933f8a3ffc5f1a@mail.gmail.com> <20090427083935.GA20941@elte.hu> <21d7e9970904270156v54a6483fs20d5b31c97a1d482@mail.gmail.com> <49F65FA2.4010603@kernel.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2073 Lines: 50 On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, david@lang.hm wrote: >> >> as a end-user creating my own configs, I use the defaults as a guide to >> understand when something moves from "we think it's a good idea" to "things >> really need this" > > I'm not talking about the defaults in the Kconfig files themselves, I'm > talking about the millions of "*_defconfig" files that have tons of random > default values. Ok, I misunderstood. >> If a tool was available to detect the hardware and create a config tailored >> for the box, this use for a default config would go away > > Yeah, I've wished for that. > > Although I personally don't find that the actual hardware to be the > biggest issue (since there are usually just a few options for that, and > they are mostly not confusing). Instead, it's the issues about knowing > which software components (netfilter, filesystems, auditing, POSIX ACL's) > that you really want. yes and no, getting a config that will boot on your system can sometimes be 'interesting' (mapping hardware -> config option for example), but should be able to be automated. the other items that you mention (netfilter, etc) are actually the easier ones to deal with (you know what you want), and also the place where it's impossible to detect what's wanted. > It tends to be easy to just enable them all, but if you want a nice > efficient build, that's very much against the point. > > So having some kind of (probably inevitably fairly complex) script that > you could run to get a config would be good. The problem is that the > script would need to be distributed with the kernel, yet it would often > also have some nasty distro issues. I've seen people talk about creating such tools, but the responses that I've seen have tended to discourage them. David Lang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/