From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161219AbWF0RoK (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:44:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161231AbWF0RoK (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:44:10 -0400 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:25761 "HELO xenotime.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161219AbWF0RoJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:44:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:46:49 -0700 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Adrian Bunk Cc: wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.17-mm3: no help text for READAHEAD_ALLOW_OVERHEADS Message-Id: <20060627104649.25832e61.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20060627144019.GA13915@stusta.de> References: <20060627015211.ce480da6.akpm@osdl.org> <20060627091429.GK23314@stusta.de> <20060627134337.GA6117@mail.ustc.edu.cn> <20060627144019.GA13915@stusta.de> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.5 (GTK+ 2.8.3; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:40:19 +0200 Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 09:43:37PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:14:29AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 01:52:11AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > >... > > > > Changes since 2.6.17-mm2: > > > > +readahead-kconfig-option-readahead_allow_overheads.patch > > > >... > > > > readahead updates > > > >... > > > > > > The READAHEAD_ALLOW_OVERHEADS option lacks a help text. > > > > Oh, it just acts as a submenu and a reminder ;) > > > > > Additionally, the "default n" is pointless and should be removed. > > > > I expect the _extra_ features are useless for normal users. > > Your reasoning or feeling? > >... > > That's not my point, my point is that if you remove the "default n" > line, nothing changes. The default is still "n", but it's better > readable. Why is it more readable without the "default n" line? One could say that supplying the default "default n" line is clearer than having it omitted. --- ~Randy