On 07/06/2012 07:08 AM, Jean Delvare wrote:
> This feature has been around for over 5 years now, so I presume it is
> no longer considered experimental.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <ar...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <a...@firstfloor.org>
> ---
> Or is there any reason to still consider this an experimental feature?
I doubt it, but if it is still experimental, it should also have
depends on EXPERIMENTAL
and then it would be nice if kconfig (the software) would add the
" (EXPERIMENTAL)" tag when it sees such a dependency.
>
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- linux-3.5-rc5.orig/arch/x86/Kconfig 2012-06-05 16:22:58.000000000
> +0200
> +++ linux-3.5-rc5/arch/x86/Kconfig 2012-07-06 15:32:55.660276577 +0200
> @@ -1525,7 +1525,7 @@ config SECCOMP
> If unsure, say Y. Only embedded should say N here.
>
> config CC_STACKPROTECTOR
> - bool "Enable -fstack-protector buffer overflow detection (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> + bool "Enable -fstack-protector buffer overflow detection"
> ---help---
> This option turns on the -fstack-protector GCC feature. This
> feature puts, at the beginning of functions, a canary value on
>
--
~Randy
--
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/
