[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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

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

IMHO your comments are very valuable.

> rday



"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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.121 / U:4.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site