[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <465E8D4C.9040506@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:54:36 +0200
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: clameter@....com
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] CONFIG_STABLE: Define it
> --- slub.orig/init/Kconfig 2007-05-30 16:35:05.000000000 -0700
> +++ slub/init/Kconfig 2007-05-30 16:35:45.000000000 -0700
> @@ -65,6 +65,13 @@ endmenu
>
> menu "General setup"
>
> +config STABLE
> + bool "Stable kernel"
> + help
> + If the kernel is configured to be a stable kernel then various
> + checks that are only of interest to kernel development will be
> + omitted.
> +
> config LOCALVERSION
> string "Local version - append to kernel release"
> help
a) Why in Kconfig, why not in Makefile?
b) Of course nobody wants STABLE=n. :-) How about:
config RELEASE
bool "Build for release"
help
If the kernel is declared as a release build here, then
various checks that are only of interest to kernel development
will be omitted.
c) A drawback of this general option is, it's hard to tell what will be
omitted in particular.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= =====
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists