Quoting Paul E. McKenney (paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com): > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 10:21:42AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:47:12AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:17:02AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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 <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > > > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebied...@xmission.com> > > > > > > CC: Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@canonical.com> > > > > > > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > CC: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> > > > > > > CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@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 :) > > > > > > OK, so the only real hope for experimental features is to refrain from > > > creating a config option for them, so that people wishing to use them > > > must modify the code? Or is the philosophy that we keep things out of > > > tree until we are comfortable with distros turning them on? > > > > I think that should have been your philosophy for a long time, as they > > turn on everything, and I don't blame them. Why would we have included > > it in the kernel tree, unless we wanted people to use the option? > > Because some sizeable group of people would like to use the option, > but it is not helpful to many others?
The way that is worded, that wouldn't sound like CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL even if that worked the way we wanted. Just a clearly worded separate config option for your feature would be best in that case. Yes there are tons of options to wade through, but you can't make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL a binary for what you describe, since the experimental options i'd want (user namespaces, etc) would not be the same ones you'd want. -serge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
