Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
That doesn't seem to cover what we talked about clearly at all ?
I suppose the _ALL stuff is meant to cover stuff with overhead,
but frankly, what Ingo did seemed much clearer to me.
It just didn't make much sense, a config option only to configure the
default value of unseen values?
If we have too many debug options, I don't mind to hide them behind an
advanced config option, but their default values should not differ between
their visible and hidden state, so that the user sees the real values when
he enables the advanced option.
A config option which only configures the default values is much less
useful, in an already configured kernel it's completely useless to an user
who only wants to enable some runtime checks and unless he reads the help
text _carefully_, he might even think that he just enabled some runtime
checks.
Did you read the discussion that lead up to it? I thought that quite
clearly described why such a thing was needed.
Config options need to clearly distinguish what they're for, or people
will screw them up ... given:
config DEBUG_RUNTIME_CHECKS
bool "Enable runtime debug checks"
config DEBUG_RUNTIME_CHECKS_ALL
bool "Enable all runtime debug checks"
depends on DEBUG_RUNTIME_CHECKS
... how is either the user meant to know under which of these to find
things, or the coder introducing a new feature supposed to know where
to put stuff? They're not very descriptive.
Please can we have a more constructive discussion that "it's wrong,
nack" ?
M.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
