[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090430144309.GC14897@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:43:09 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
zippel@...ux-m68k.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] removing unwanted module configs
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Since this option can also be used for helping embedded
> > developers (I used it for that) I would not want to bloat the
> > kernel with running a script that is suppose to minimize it. But
> > if IKCONFIG && !IKCONFIG_PROC does not add more data to the
> > kernel, then I would be happy to turn it on by default.
>
> Actually, I can let the user decide. If it sees that IKCONFIG is
> not set, it can remove it from the .config output. When the
> silentoldconfig runs afterwards, it will ask the user if they want
> to enable it.
No, please offer reasonable non-interactive default behavior. It's
pretty well-defined, and it can be engineered to be self-sufficient
as well. Why not do that?
Ingo
--
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