On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 03:51:53PM +0900, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > I'd think evaluating every new or changed kernel option is a nice to > have rather than a requirement. The kernel is very strict at changing > or adding new defaults, so I wouldn't see it unreasonable to simply > trust the default configuration as sane. I agree the defaults are sane. There are some choices that we have to make, and some that we choose to make (mentioned in my previous email).
> So we'd have a .defconfig file which lists just what we chose > differently from upstream Linux, and every kernel bump would be a matter > of updating its hash, and rarely, perhaps enabling something not in the > default config, which would be added to our defconfig file. How would we know if we want to deviate from the defaults, except by going through the new configuration options? We have to know what the options are in order to decide about them. It seems like the same amount of work to me.
