lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: observations on 2.5 config screens
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.132 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site