lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [-mm patch] seccomp: don't say it was more or less mandatory
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:44:49AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:32:47AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If you want to use Cpushare, you know that you have to enable seccomp.
>
> Oh yeah, I know it, you know it, but not everyone will know it while
> configuring the kernel, infact I doubt they'll even know what Cpushare
> is about while they configure the kernel ;). And I doubt they should be
> required to know all those details in order to make that choice, and my
> point is that seccomp is low overhead enough that everyone can enable it
> if they're unsure, just in case. I'm just trying to explain why I
> recommend it to Y by default "if unsure".

My point is simply:

The help text for an option you need only under very specific
circumstances shouldn't sound as if this option was nearly was
mandatory.

For me, that's a question principle, not of risks of breakage or code
size.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:10    [W:0.157 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site