[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090727091824.38d55ea1.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:18:24 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lgrijincu@...acom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] documentation: make it clear that sysfs is optional
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:10:33 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 09:06:42AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > From: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lgrijincu@...acom.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] documentation: make it clear that sysfs is optional
> >
> > The original text suggested that sysfs is mandatory and always
> > compiled in the kernel.
>
> But it should be :)
Well, you have the option of making it non-optional.
> Seriously, who turns sysfs off these days, does anyone? If so, why?
Why is it configurable then?
---
~Randy
LPC 2009, Sept. 23-25, Portland, Oregon
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/2009/
--
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