[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B5A5631.7020706@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:51:45 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Ozan Çağlayan <ozan@...dus.org.tr>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@...nel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [stable] RFC: deprecate CONFIG_X86_CPU_DEBUG and schedule it
for rapid removal
On 01/22/2010 05:20 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 05:05:08PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 01/22/2010 04:53 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>> Would it not be better to fix that problem (perhaps just with the
>>> revert) so that 2.6.33, 2.6.32.x and earlier can be fixed? Then we can
>>> nuke the feature in 2.6.34.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, we can nuke the feature from 2.6.33 and 2.6.32.x and
>>> earlier right now. Where "nuke" might mean "make it difficult to
>>> enable".
>>>
>>> Whatever. Bottom line is that it'd be nice to do something to fix up
>>> 2.6.33 and earlier.
>>>
>>
>> I would be all for nuking the feature immediately. The easiest way to
>> nuke the feature quickly is to make it a noninteractive Kconfig feature.
>>
>> All in favor?
>
> /me raises his hand.
>
> A Kconfig change would be nice to have.
>
I take that as an Acked-by: ...
-hpa
--
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