Re: [2/2] 2.6.23-rc5: known regressions with patches

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 16:04 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> You shouldn't push this even for 2.6.24 ... I can't see why/how a runtime
> BUG() scores over erroring out at build-time itself. And if there is no
> codepath that leads to that BUG() at runtime, then what's the point of
> adding dead code ...
>
> So I wonder if what you're actually looking for is some kind of Kconfig
> dependencies that will *prevent* the kind of .config from being generated
> that Ingo ran into ?

I looked at that but decided against it. There's too much hand-holding
and arbitrary 'automatic' crap in the Kconfig crap already, and I
couldn't see a way to do it that didn't make that worse.

As long as we no longer break randconfig builds, it'll be fine. It's not
as if people _run_ those kernels, let alone actually exercise the code
path in question.

-- 
dwmw2

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/