Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:51:47 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [-mm patch] seccomp: don't say it was more or less mandatory |
| |
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:44:49AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:32:47AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > If you want to use Cpushare, you know that you have to enable seccomp. > > Oh yeah, I know it, you know it, but not everyone will know it while > configuring the kernel, infact I doubt they'll even know what Cpushare > is about while they configure the kernel ;). And I doubt they should be > required to know all those details in order to make that choice, and my > point is that seccomp is low overhead enough that everyone can enable it > if they're unsure, just in case. I'm just trying to explain why I > recommend it to Y by default "if unsure".
My point is simply:
The help text for an option you need only under very specific circumstances shouldn't sound as if this option was nearly was mandatory.
For me, that's a question principle, not of risks of breakage or code size.
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/
| |