>>>That has the same problem that AC was worried about. Variables that
>>>used to be treated as "undefined, don't care" are now treated as
>>>"undefined, assume n and forbid".
>> What variables? Please show me a real example.
>Not my job. If you want to make a global change to the meaning of
>undefined config variables, it is your responsibility to show that the
>change has no unwanted side effects. Assuming there are no side
>effects is unsatisfactory in a stable kernel, especially with all the
>config variables in patch sets outside the kernel.
That's not reasonable in the face of what appears to be
completely fabricated myth. You generally can't prove this
kind of a negative for anything. Either you or Alan Cox should
show an example. Can you even show me the code that such an
example would exercise. Can you even write a hypothetical example?
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104
firstname.lastname@example.org \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034
+1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/