On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:25:28 CST, Chris Friesen wrote: > Shailabh Nagar wrote: > > > Sounds like a case is being made to make CONFIG_RCFS a "y" and eliminate > > the possibility of it being a loadable module ? > > No, I believe the idea was to make CONFIG_RCFS be automatically set to > the same as CKRM.
Right, but CONFIG_CKRM is a Y/N, rcfs can be a module which is loaded or not, depending on whether someone actually wants to *use* classes in CKRM. In theory, distros could build with CKRM set to "Y" but leave RCFS as a module to simplify testing. It dosn't matter too much to me but it seems like having the flexibility of leaving rcfs as a module is a nice capability. I'm willing to be hear all comments. ;-) gerrit ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
