On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:21:24AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > Okay, but I'm not asking for CONFIG_SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC, just > CONFIG_SECCOMP, which is completely harmless (unless you can tell me > where the harm is).
it adds useless bloat. the SECCOMP_DISABLE_TSC is crazy, that is adding a couple of instructions to the hottest scheduler path. > > > Please re-enable this feature. It is needed for CPUShare (see #417130). > > > > no. > > that is a commercial entity, no need to push that. > > CPUShare is not a commercial entity, it is a piece of software I > use and package and is unfortunately non-functional on Debian systems > because CONFIG_SECCOMP is disabled. why would we diverge from upstream? what's that nonesense. each distribution is free to choose and adapt it's .config. > for political reasons that have nothing to do with our social contract > (and probably violate 4.). > > > unless something substantial comes up that bug can be close right away. > > Wow, thanks for listening to the users. if it had users we already would have been notified. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
