| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 17:22:40 -0500 (EST) From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> To: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent users from disabling tickless > Why remove the ability to make the configuration choice? Why not > just add the info about performance impact to the help text and > let me shoot myself in the foot (that is the unix way (tm)) if > I desire to? One can argue that configurability is one of the greatest strengths of Linux. OTOH, one can also argue that users tend to get lost and hang themselves when given too much rope; and that the burden of support and maintenance of unnecessary config options squanders valuable resources. Personally, I have two bugs filed against my code that can be reproduced only in tickfull mode that almost nobody uses. Is it a good use of my time to be distracted by by configurations that 0.01% use, or focus on issues seen by the other 99.99%? I'm in favor of deleting the config option, and the cmdline option with it, and I applaud Matthew for proposing such. Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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