[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 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

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  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