On 07/20/2007 12:36 PM, Stefan Richter wrote:
+config STABLE
+ bool "Stable kernel"
>
> PS: Imagine the headlines at Slashdot, CNET et al when this gets in.
I think this really should be called CONFIG_EXTRA_CHECKS.
It's a lot clearer what that means...
-
To unsubscribe from
Chris Snook wrote:
> There are many different ways you can use it. If I'm writing a configurable
> feature, I could make it depend on !CONFIG_STABLE, or I could ifdef my code
> out
> if CONFIG_STABLE is set, unless a more granular option is also set. The
> maintainer of the code that uses
>>> +config STABLE
>>> + bool "Stable kernel"
PS: Imagine the headlines at Slashdot, CNET et al when this gets in.
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -=== =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
(I missed the original post, hence am replying to te reply...)
> On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...]
>> menu "General setup"
>>
>>
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> > [ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Satyam Sharma wrote:
>> > [ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
>
>
> On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
>
>
> On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
>>
>>
Satyam Sharma wrote:
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
menu "General
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
menu "General setup"
+config STABLE
+
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph
Satyam Sharma wrote:
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
menu General setup
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 7/20/07, Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Satyam Sharma wrote:
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I missed the original post, hence am replying to te reply...)
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
menu General setup
+config STABLE
+
+config STABLE
+ bool Stable kernel
PS: Imagine the headlines at Slashdot, CNET et al when this gets in.
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -=== =-=--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Snook wrote:
There are many different ways you can use it. If I'm writing a configurable
feature, I could make it depend on !CONFIG_STABLE, or I could ifdef my code
out
if CONFIG_STABLE is set, unless a more granular option is also set. The
maintainer of the code that uses the
On 07/20/2007 12:36 PM, Stefan Richter wrote:
+config STABLE
+ bool Stable kernel
PS: Imagine the headlines at Slashdot, CNET et al when this gets in.
I think this really should be called CONFIG_EXTRA_CHECKS.
It's a lot clearer what that means...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
[ Just cleaning up my inbox, and stumbled across this thread ... ]
On 5/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
menu General setup
+config STABLE
+
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:30:06PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > > + sym =
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > + sym = sym_lookup("DEVEL_KERNEL", 0);
> > > > + sym->type = S_BOOLEAN;
> > > > +
>
> With the following behaviour:
>
> DEVEL_KERNEL = 0 in Makefile:
>
> DEVEL_KERNEL=n in Kconfig
> CONFIG_DEVEL_KERNEL is not set in cpp
>
> DEVEL_KERNEL = 1 in Makefile:
>
> DEVEL_KERNEL=y in Kconfig
> CONFIG_DEVEL_KERNEL is set in cpp
>
> however the above patch
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > +sym = sym_lookup("DEVEL_KERNEL", 0);
> > > +sym->type = S_BOOLEAN;
> > > +sym->flags |= SYMBOL_AUTO;
> > > +p =
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Disabling SLUB_DEBUG should only be done for embedded systems. That is why
> > the option is in CONFIG_EMBEDDED.
>
> Something I'd really love to have is a CONFIG option to decide if
> slub_debug is set or not by default. The reasoning behind this is
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:49:56PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007, young dave wrote:
>
> > Hi Christoph,
> >
> > > Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
> >
> > What about control checks only as SLUB_DEBUG is set?
>
> Debug code
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > + sym = sym_lookup("DEVEL_KERNEL", 0);
> > + sym->type = S_BOOLEAN;
> > + sym->flags |= SYMBOL_AUTO;
> > + p = getenv("DEVEL_KERNEL");
> > + if (p && atoi(p))
> > + sym_add_default(sym, "y");
> > + else
> > +
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
+ sym = sym_lookup(DEVEL_KERNEL, 0);
+ sym-type = S_BOOLEAN;
+ sym-flags |= SYMBOL_AUTO;
+ p = getenv(DEVEL_KERNEL);
+ if (p atoi(p))
+ sym_add_default(sym, y);
+ else
+
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:49:56PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, young dave wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
What about control checks only as SLUB_DEBUG is set?
Debug code is always
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
Disabling SLUB_DEBUG should only be done for embedded systems. That is why
the option is in CONFIG_EMBEDDED.
Something I'd really love to have is a CONFIG option to decide if
slub_debug is set or not by default. The reasoning behind this is that
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
+sym = sym_lookup(DEVEL_KERNEL, 0);
+sym-type = S_BOOLEAN;
+sym-flags |= SYMBOL_AUTO;
+p = getenv(DEVEL_KERNEL);
+
With the following behaviour:
DEVEL_KERNEL = 0 in Makefile:
DEVEL_KERNEL=n in Kconfig
CONFIG_DEVEL_KERNEL is not set in cpp
DEVEL_KERNEL = 1 in Makefile:
DEVEL_KERNEL=y in Kconfig
CONFIG_DEVEL_KERNEL is set in cpp
however the above patch doesn't do this
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
+ sym = sym_lookup(DEVEL_KERNEL, 0);
+ sym-type = S_BOOLEAN;
+ sym-flags |=
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 04:30:06PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:22:02PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
+ sym = sym_lookup(DEVEL_KERNEL, 0);
>
> So something like this:
>
> diff -puN Makefile~a Makefile
> --- a/Makefile~a
> +++ a/Makefile
> @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ PATCHLEVEL = 6
> SUBLEVEL = 22
> EXTRAVERSION = -rc3
> NAME = Jeff Thinks I Should Change This, But To What?
> +DEVEL_KERNEL = 1
Could we name this: KERNELDEVEL to fit with
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> however the above patch doesn't do this correctly and I got bored of
> fiddling with it. Help?
Will get something like what you described into the next release if
no one else has anything to add.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:20:48 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
> init/Kconfig |7 +++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> Index: slub/init/Kconfig
>
>> menu "General setup"
>>
>> +config STABLE
>> +bool "Stable kernel"
[...]
> a) Why in Kconfig, why not in Makefile?
>
> b) Of course nobody wants STABLE=n. :-) How about:
>
> config RELEASE
> bool "Build for release"
> help
> If the kernel is declared as a release
From: Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:54:36 +0200
> b) Of course nobody wants STABLE=n. :-) How about:
>
> config RELEASE
> bool "Build for release"
> help
> If the kernel is declared as a release build here, then
> various checks that
> --- slub.orig/init/Kconfig2007-05-30 16:35:05.0 -0700
> +++ slub/init/Kconfig 2007-05-30 16:35:45.0 -0700
> @@ -65,6 +65,13 @@ endmenu
>
> menu "General setup"
>
> +config STABLE
> + bool "Stable kernel"
> + help
> + If the kernel is configured to be a
--- slub.orig/init/Kconfig2007-05-30 16:35:05.0 -0700
+++ slub/init/Kconfig 2007-05-30 16:35:45.0 -0700
@@ -65,6 +65,13 @@ endmenu
menu General setup
+config STABLE
+ bool Stable kernel
+ help
+ If the kernel is configured to be a stable kernel then
From: Stefan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:54:36 +0200
b) Of course nobody wants STABLE=n. :-) How about:
config RELEASE
bool Build for release
help
If the kernel is declared as a release build here, then
various checks that are only of
menu General setup
+config STABLE
+bool Stable kernel
[...]
a) Why in Kconfig, why not in Makefile?
b) Of course nobody wants STABLE=n. :-) How about:
config RELEASE
bool Build for release
help
If the kernel is declared as a release build here, then
On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:20:48 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
init/Kconfig |7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
Index: slub/init/Kconfig
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
however the above patch doesn't do this correctly and I got bored of
fiddling with it. Help?
Will get something like what you described into the next release if
no one else has anything to add.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
So something like this:
diff -puN Makefile~a Makefile
--- a/Makefile~a
+++ a/Makefile
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 22
EXTRAVERSION = -rc3
NAME = Jeff Thinks I Should Change This, But To What?
+DEVEL_KERNEL = 1
Could we name this: KERNELDEVEL to fit with current naming
On Thu, 31 May 2007, young dave wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> > Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
>
> What about control checks only as SLUB_DEBUG is set?
Debug code is always included in all builds unless it is an embedded
system. Debug code is kept out of
Hi Christoph,
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
What about control checks only as SLUB_DEBUG is set?
Regards
dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
init/Kconfig |7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
Index: slub/init/Kconfig
===
---
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
init/Kconfig |7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
Index: slub/init/Kconfig
===
---
Hi Christoph,
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
What about control checks only as SLUB_DEBUG is set?
Regards
dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Thu, 31 May 2007, young dave wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development.
What about control checks only as SLUB_DEBUG is set?
Debug code is always included in all builds unless it is an embedded
system. Debug code is kept out of the hot
52 matches
Mail list logo
