Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Update defconfigs for CONFIG_HUGETLB

2008-06-12 Thread Adrian Bunk 
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 02:55:45PM -0400, Adam Litke wrote:
> Update all defconfigs that specify a default configuration for hugetlbfs.
> There is now only one option: CONFIG_HUGETLB.  Replace the old
> CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE and CONFIG_HUGETLBFS options with the new one.  I found no
> cases where CONFIG_HUGETLBFS and CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE had different values so
> this patch is large but completely mechanical:
>...
>  335 files changed, 335 insertions(+), 385 deletions(-)
>...

Please don't do this kind of patches - it doesn't bring any advantage 
but can create tons of patch conflicts.

The next time a defconfig gets updated it will anyway automatically be 
fixed, and for defconfigs that aren't updated it doesn't create any 
problems to keep them as they are today until they might one day get 
updated.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Update defconfigs for CONFIG_HUGETLB

2008-06-13 Thread Adam Litke 
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 22:36 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 02:55:45PM -0400, Adam Litke wrote:
> > Update all defconfigs that specify a default configuration for hugetlbfs.
> > There is now only one option: CONFIG_HUGETLB.  Replace the old
> > CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE and CONFIG_HUGETLBFS options with the new one.  I found 
> > no
> > cases where CONFIG_HUGETLBFS and CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE had different values so
> > this patch is large but completely mechanical:
> >...
> >  335 files changed, 335 insertions(+), 385 deletions(-)
> >...
> 
> Please don't do this kind of patches - it doesn't bring any advantage 
> but can create tons of patch conflicts.
> 
> The next time a defconfig gets updated it will anyway automatically be 
> fixed, and for defconfigs that aren't updated it doesn't create any 
> problems to keep them as they are today until they might one day get 
> updated.

Thanks for taking a look.  I am not sure if I have ever seen a defconfig
patch hit the mailing list before and I was wondering how those changes
happen.  In any case I am perfectly happy to drop this huge patch and
stick with just the first one.

-- 
Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center

___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev