Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: observations on 2.5 config screens | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 07 Jan 2003 18:42:16 -0500 |
| |
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 18:30, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 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.
I think it should be there. Plus, as you say, it is defined per-architecture.
The real problem in my opinion is that the category is misnamed. It is not "processor options" except for the first couple. The majority of the options should be under a title of "core" or "architecture" or "system options" in my opinion.
Robert Love
- 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/
| |