Re: observations on 2.5 config screens

Adrian Bunk (bunk@fs.tum.de)
Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:30:12 +0100


On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 02:55:01PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>...
> Processor family
>
> It seems that the final option, "Preemptible kernel", does
> not belong there. In fact, there seem to be a number of
> kernel-related, kind of hacking/debugging options, that
> could be collected in one place, like preemption, sysctl,
> hacking, executable file formats, etc. "Low-level kernel
> options", perhaps?
>...

Robert, could you comment on whether it's really needed to have the
preemt option defined architecture-dependant?

After looking through the arch/*/Kconfig files it seems to me that the
most problematic things might be architecture-specific parts of other
architecturs that don't even offer PREEMPT and the depends on CPU_32 in
arch/arm/Kconfig.

> anyway, just some observations from someone who doesn't
> know any better.

IMHO your comments are very valuable.

> rday

cu
Adrian

-- 

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/