On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:53 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedeki...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've also amended the Kconfig text a tiny bit and dropped the defconfig > changes - let's have them separately as a single patch at the end of the > series.
Wouldn't having the defconfig change as the last patch break things for those defconfigs that had explicitly set CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE other than the default? Meaning, if the one-before-last would be "kill CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE", then those defconfigs that had _explicitly_ set a BEB_RESERVE value, which do not YET set a BEB_LIMIT value, will have their BEB_LIMIT as the default - but they actually meant a specific value other than the default. This is why I tried to: - set the CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT in defconfigs as part of the commit which introduces this config (copy same value as their RESERVE config) - kill all CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE references from defconfigs as part of the commit which kills it Regards, Shmulik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
