linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081211113646.GI23742@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:36:47 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix LSF default inconsistency

On Thu, Dec 11 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > No objection from me, getting rid of configuration options almost
> > > always gets my vote :)
> > 
> > Yeah, mine too. One recent addition was CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU - why on
> > earth is that an option?!
> 
> As far as I know, CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU depend on CONFIG_MMU
> because any unevictable lru developer don't have nommu machine ;)
> 
> I expect that nobody of mmu user don't turn off unevictable lru feature.

Perhaps I didn't frase the question correctly. My question is, why is it
a visible option? Does it make ANY sense to turn off
CONFIG_UNEVICTABLE_LRU?

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/