Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:53:44 -0700 | | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default |
| |
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:25:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:50:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > This config item has not carried much meaning for a while now and is > >> > almost always enabled by default. As agreed during the Linux kernel > >> > summit, it should be removed. As a first step, remove it from being > >> > listed, and default it to on. Once it has been removed from all > >> > subsystem Kconfigs, it will be dropped entirely. > >> > > >> > CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > >> > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> > >> > CC: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com> > >> > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > >> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > >> > CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> > >> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > >> > --- > >> > > >> > This is the first of a series of 202 patches removing EXPERIMENTAL from > >> > all the Kconfigs in the tree. Should I send them all to lkml (with all > >> > the associated CCs), or do people want to cherry-pick changes from my > >> > tree? I don't want to needlessly flood the list. > >> > > >> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/experimental > >> > > >> > I figure this patch can stand alone to at least make EXPERIMENTAL go > >> > away from the menus, and give us a taste of what the removal would do > >> > to builds. > >> > >> OK, I will bite... How should I flag an option that is initially only > >> intended for those willing to take some level of risk? > > > > In the text say "You really don't want to enable this option, use at > > your own risk!" Or something like that :) > > So, should I update the commit description to include a suggested > alternative? (If so, which one?)
Which do you prefer?
> Who is going to carry this initial patch, btw?
You? :)
greg k-h
|  |