David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: > From: ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) > Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 13:16:44 -0600 > >> David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: >> >>> From: j...@joshtriplett.org >>> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:53:10 -0800 >>> >>>> It's not a "slippery slope"; it's been our standard practice for ages. >>> >>> We've never put an entire class of generic system calls behind >>> a config option. >> >> CONFIG_SYSVIPC has been in the kernel as long as I can remember. >> >> I seem to remember a plan to remove that code once userspace had >> finished migrating to more unixy interfaces to ipc. But in 20 years >> that migration does does not seem to have finished, or even look >> like it ever will. >> >> But if we started a slippery slope it was long long ago. > > Fair enough. > > Would be amusing if these tiny systems have it enabled.
It would. In practice when I was playing in that space I had a hard time justifying CONFIG_NET and CONFIG_INET. Despite writing a network bootloader to use with kexec. Eric -- 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/
