Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional

From: H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 15:54:09 EST

Next message: Andreas Schwab: "Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies"
Previous message: Alan Stern: "Test Patch: 2.5.69 Interrupt Latency"
In reply to: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Next in thread: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Reply: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0305141342030.4539@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
By author: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Not only. Like Ulrich was saying, the config documentation should heavily
> warn the wild config guy about the consequences of a 'NO' over there.
>

How about creating a master option like we have for experimental?
Something like "Allow removal of essential components?" (CONFIG_EMBEDDED)

-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andreas Schwab: "Re: [PATCH] new kconfig goodies"
Previous message: Alan Stern: "Test Patch: 2.5.69 Interrupt Latency"
In reply to: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Next in thread: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Reply: Davide Libenzi: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:54 EST