From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46A0E2A9.6000308@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:28:25 +0200 From: Stefan Richter MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC 1/4] CONFIG_STABLE: Define it References: <20070531002047.702473071@sgi.com> <20070531003012.302019683@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Satyam Sharma Cc: "clameter@sgi.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Chris Snook List-ID: (I missed the original post, hence am replying to te reply...) > On 5/31/07, clameter@sgi.com wrote: >> Introduce CONFIG_STABLE to control checks only useful for development. >> >> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter >> [...] >> menu "General setup" >> >> +config STABLE >> + bool "Stable kernel" >> + help >> + If the kernel is configured to be a stable kernel then various >> + checks that are only of interest to kernel development will be >> + omitted. >> + Didn't we talk about the wording and the logic some time ago? Your option looks like a magic switch that suddenly improves kernel stability, hence everyone will switch it on. How about this: config BUILD_FOR_RELEASE bool "Build for release" help If the kernel is configured as a release build, various checks that are only of interest to kernel development will be omitted. If unsure, say Y. Or this: config BUILD_FOR_TESTING bool "Build for testing" help If the kernel is configured as a test build, various checks useful for testing of pre-releases will be activated. If unsure, say N. -- Stefan Richter -=====-=-=== -=== =-=-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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