linux-kernel - Re: NFS_FSCACHE still depends on EXPERIMENTAL?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:43:56 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dhowells@...hat.com,
	adkulkar@...il.iu.edu
Subject: Re: NFS_FSCACHE still depends on EXPERIMENTAL?

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 at 14:30, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> since the EXPERIMENTAL flag more or less means nothing, the
> "it is marked with the flag so we don't do it" is reasoning based on
> more or less nothing...

Understood, but...if EXPERIMENTAL "more or less means nothing" (is this a 
general consensus?), why is the flag still used at all? IOW, would a patch 
removing all EXPERIMENTAL flags from all(!) options be accepted?

Thanks,
Christian.
-- 
BOFH excuse #160:

non-redundant fan failure
--
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/