[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100514081155.GD3296@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:41:55 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
James Kosin <jkosin@...comgrp.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
jsafrane@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2010-05-14 09:23:41]:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 08:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Init using the bare minimum possible only seems like a sensible thing.
> > Once the basic stuff is running you can detect whats available and use
> > it if needed/wanted.
>
> I really think init should be able to run regardless of any CONFIG_*
> option. The only thing that should avoid init from running is not being
> able to mount the filesystem with init on it.
>
I suppose we'll continue to have alternative with the init=
commandline option. If you look at the boot process today, we do
already rely on features (CONFIG_*) for bootup. Changing the default
to have CONFIG_CGROUP=y (without any of the controllers) would work,
won't it? Is that too high an overhead/build or runtime wise?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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