[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> >
> > Current == current development. LinuxThreads is not developed anymore
> > and with nptl futexes are mandatory.
> Yes, I'm also not very eager to make "core functionality" a config option.
> The confusion with the INPUT layer config options was mighty, and none of
> it pleasant. And the *BSD's have historically had totally stupid problems
> with programs like Wine etc requireing kernel recompiles just because they
> made code functionality like vm86 mode or LDT support be a config option.
> I don't see the point in dropping futexes except perhaps in a very
> controlled embedded environment, but if that is the case, then a PC config
> should just force it to "y" and not even ask the user.
> We absolutely do NOT want the situation where a program will not work just
> because the user forgot some config option that mostly isn't needed.

Not only. Like Ulrich was saying, the config documentation should heavily
warn the wild config guy about the consequences of a 'NO' over there.

- Davide

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 13:35    [W:0.077 / U:1.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site