On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 05:46:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> >> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:25:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:50:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> >> > This config item has not carried much meaning for a while now and is >> >> >> > almost always enabled by default. As agreed during the Linux kernel >> >> >> > summit, it should be removed. As a first step, remove it from being >> >> >> > listed, and default it to on. Once it has been removed from all >> >> >> > subsystem Kconfigs, it will be dropped entirely. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > CC: Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> >> >> >> > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebied...@xmission.com> >> >> >> > CC: Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@canonical.com> >> >> >> > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> >> > CC: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> >> >> >> > CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> > >> >> >> > This is the first of a series of 202 patches removing EXPERIMENTAL >> >> >> > from >> >> >> > all the Kconfigs in the tree. Should I send them all to lkml (with >> >> >> > all >> >> >> > the associated CCs), or do people want to cherry-pick changes from my >> >> >> > tree? I don't want to needlessly flood the list. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/experimental >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I figure this patch can stand alone to at least make EXPERIMENTAL go >> >> >> > away from the menus, and give us a taste of what the removal would do >> >> >> > to builds. >> >> >> >> >> >> OK, I will bite... How should I flag an option that is initially only >> >> >> intended for those willing to take some level of risk? >> >> > >> >> > In the text say "You really don't want to enable this option, use at >> >> > your own risk!" Or something like that :) >> >> >> >> So, should I update the commit description to include a suggested >> >> alternative? (If so, which one?) >> > >> > Which do you prefer? >> >> I think developers that want something harder that strongly worded >> text in the Kconfig title or description should throw a printk. > > But having agreed-upon wording in the Kconfig title or description > is still goodness. Those of us who want printk()s, add_taint()s, > or even WARN_ON()s can always add them.
I agree. I think, actually, it might make sense to retain the "(EXPERIMENTAL)" text in the title. This is what has already been done for some of the other subsystems. On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 05:46:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> Who is going to carry this initial patch, btw? >> > >> > You? :) >> >> Do you mean to say I should ask Stephen to pull from one of my trees >> for linux-next? If so, I've made this now: >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git linux-next > > Sounds good to me, good luck. Stephen, can you add this tree to your pulls for linux-next? Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/