I understand what you mean by "generally usable". My instinct is to put
everything that a user might need to get his system running (and a few
things he might just want) in as a config option, and then document it to
death (both in the code & in the documentation). My (somewhat outdated)
Documentation/Configure.help diff is 10.5k. Documentation/i386/e820.txt is
another 11k. arch/i386/defconfig is set to the most likely values. (Most
of the options are for arch/i386/kernel/setup.c.) Anyone who disagrees with
your evaluation of "most likely" has to have read the docs in order to do
so.
I'm trying to figure out the parameters of an acceptable config option.
Nathan
> From: Linus Torvalds [mailto:torvalds@transmeta.com]
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 nathan.zook@amd.com wrote:
> >
> > You specifically mentioned es:di being changed as a don't
> care. The problem
> > is that the ACPI spec (Table 14.2) describes es:di out as,
> "Return Address
> > Range Descriptor pointer. Same value as on input."
>
> Feel free to do sanity checking.
>
> But no config options.
>
> Why?
>
> I'm looking at the current patch, and I'm left wondering which magic
> combination of options I would choose as a vendor.
>
> If one set of config options is not generally usable, then
> that set should
> not exist at all. I refuse to have code that is complex _and_
> conditional,
> and for no apparent reason.
>
> Linus
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 29 2000 - 21:00:20 EST