On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>> The reasoning looks correct to me, and I just used fgrep to
>> analyse the entire 2.3.22 tree, with the ones you pointed out
>> being the only naked ones I came across.
> Thanks Riley.
NP.
>> - if [ "$CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL" != "n" ]; then
>> + if [ "$CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL" = "y" ]; then
> All the interpreters have been fixed so that they handle != "n"
> properly (this was non-trivial because variables have the empty
> value "" if they are not initialized). So these constructions
> are OK.
So are you saying that the empty value is the same as "y" in this
case? Certainly to my way of thinking, that's the wrong way round for
this particular variable - the whole idea of CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL is
surely that one has to positively state that one is interested in
experimental values before one gets offered them?
Remember, CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL = "m" is meaningless, so the normal
argument based on that being a possible value is also meaningless.
Best wishes from Riley.
PS: The kernel versions page is now back online at the URL below, and
includes separate sublists both for each kernel series, and for
each year of development.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* http://www.memalpha.cx/Linux/Kernel/
-
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/