[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1189074491.2745.78.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:28:11 +0100
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Cc: Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [2/2] 2.6.23-rc5: known regressions with patches
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@...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