Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [2/2] 2.6.23-rc5: known regressions with patches | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:28:11 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 16:04 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > You shouldn't push this even for 2.6.24 ... I can't see why/how a runtime > BUG() scores over erroring out at build-time itself. And if there is no > codepath that leads to that BUG() at runtime, then what's the point of > adding dead code ... > > So I wonder if what you're actually looking for is some kind of Kconfig > dependencies that will *prevent* the kind of .config from being generated > that Ingo ran into ?
I looked at that but decided against it. There's too much hand-holding and arbitrary 'automatic' crap in the Kconfig crap already, and I couldn't see a way to do it that didn't make that worse.
As long as we no longer break randconfig builds, it'll be fine. It's not as if people _run_ those kernels, let alone actually exercise the code path in question.
-- dwmw2
- 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/
| |