Re: [-mm patch] seccomp: don't say it was more or less mandatory

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:44:49AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:32:47AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If you want to use Cpushare, you know that you have to enable seccomp.
> 
> Oh yeah, I know it, you know it, but not everyone will know it while
> configuring the kernel, infact I doubt they'll even know what Cpushare
> is about while they configure the kernel ;). And I doubt they should be
> required to know all those details in order to make that choice, and my
> point is that seccomp is low overhead enough that everyone can enable it
> if they're unsure, just in case. I'm just trying to explain why I
> recommend it to Y by default "if unsure".

My point is simply:

The help text for an option you need only under very specific 
circumstances shouldn't sound as if this option was nearly was 
mandatory.

For me, that's a question principle, not of risks of breakage or code 
size.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/