[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKKwE+esJ9QV25vSfnVoejQxHQA7RgoKrzDa9nYMP6uXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 17:57:03 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 103/104] mm: remove depends on CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:22 PM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
>>> index a3f8ddd..679945e 100644
>>> --- a/mm/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
>>> @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
>>> config SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL
>>> def_bool y
>>> - depends on EXPERIMENTAL || ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL
>>>
>>> choice
>>> prompt "Memory model"
>>
>> I thought you agreed to only drop EXPERIMENTAL here in
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135103415901094 and leave
>> ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL, which you've orphaned with the above, for phase
>> two of your effort?
>
> Ah! Yes, thanks. I'll restore that.
Wait, no. This is an "OR". ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL has no affect on
SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL if EXPERIMENTAL is always considered on. My
proposal was to deal with ARCH_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL separately. Did I
misunderstand something?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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