* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My point is simply: > > > > The help text for an option you need only under very specific > > circumstances shouldn't sound as if this option was nearly was > > mandatory. > > I think the sort of sell-your-cycles service which this patch enables is a > neat idea, and one which is worth supporting, especially as the kernel > patch is so tiny. So we want as many machines as possible to support it. > So people don't need a special kernel just to join in. > > Others may disagree, although nobody has. > > And the patch is tiny.
see my earlier counter-arguments in the thread starting at: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110630922022462&w=2 end result of the thread: seccomp is completely unnecessary code-bloat and can be equivalently implemented via ptrace. I cannot believe this made it into -BK ... Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
