Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:30:12 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: observations on 2.5 config screens |
| |
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/
| |