![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 7/2/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Abhishek Sagar wrote: > > > On 7/1/07, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > isn't kprobes mature enough to not be considered experimental anymore? > > > > That would vary from arch to arch. > > fair enough. however, at the very least, i'm thinking that the entire > "Instrumentation support" submenu can be made non-EXPERIMENTAL, while > individual entries therein can be EXPERIMENTAL on a choice-by-choice > basis or something like that. There's not a lot in that menu. It holds oprofile on every arch I grepped on. Oprofile might come across as being marked non-experimental but that may very well be due to the assumption that the menu that holds that option will enforce the EXPERIMENTAL check. How many archs do you see where oprofile and kprobe defer on their dependency on EXPERIMENTAL? Removing the EXPERIMENTAL check from the instrumentation menu will also require you to fix/double-check dependency on EXPERIMENTAL of oprofile/kprobes, provided you know that for sure. Which would bring you back to the same question you began with, namely, whether option xyz is EXPERIMENTAL or not. -- Abhishek Sagar - > 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/ - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-07-02 11:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||