From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 02:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070531.020324.35020300.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] CONFIG_STABLE: Define it From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <465E8D4C.9040506@s5r6.in-berlin.de> References: <20070531002047.702473071@sgi.com> <20070531003012.302019683@sgi.com> <465E8D4C.9040506@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Stefan Richter Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:54:36 +0200 Return-Path: To: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Cc: clameter@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: > 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 interest to kernel development > will be omitted. Agreed :-) > > c) A drawback of this general option is, it's hard to tell what will be > omitted in particular. In that sense it is similar to EMBEDDED, but I still think there is high value to this, I can already think of several things I want to put under this which are only noise I want to see during development periods. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org