Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:
[*] Support for paging of anonymous memory
It shouldn't really be there, should it?
Andrew Walrond
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:15:34PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:
>
> [*] Support for paging of anonymous memory
>
> It shouldn't really be there, should it?
Why not? Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
plenty use for it.
> [[email protected]]
>
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:15:34PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:
> >
> > [*] Support for paging of anonymous memory
> >
> > It shouldn't really be there, should it?
>
> Why not? Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
> plenty use for it.
Andrew probably means the problem is in _where_ the entry shows up in
menuconfig (and he's right). I believe he didn't mean to question the
existence of the option.
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:49:06PM +0100, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:15:34PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > > Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:
> > >
> > > [*] Support for paging of anonymous memory
> > >
> > > It shouldn't really be there, should it?
> >
> > Why not? Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
> > plenty use for it.
>
> Andrew probably means the problem is in _where_ the entry shows up in
> menuconfig (and he's right). I believe he didn't mean to question the
> existence of the option.
Ah, okay :) I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
on it's placements. If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
> [[email protected]]
>
> Ah, okay :) I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> on it's placements. If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
*** Approach A ***
diff -urN a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig
--- a/arch/i386/Kconfig 2003-03-03 20:04:08.000000000 +0100
+++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig 2003-03-03 20:08:29.000000000 +0100
@@ -5,6 +5,9 @@
mainmenu "Linux Kernel Configuration"
+
+menu "Architecture specific options"
+
config X86
bool
default y
@@ -23,9 +26,9 @@
default y
help
This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
- for socalled swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
- used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
- in your computer. If unusre say Y.
+ for the so-called swap devices or swap files. There are used to
+ provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM presents in your
+ computer. If unsure, say Y.
config SBUS
bool
@@ -38,6 +41,9 @@
bool
default y
+endmenu
+
+
source "init/Kconfig"
*** Approach B ***
diff -urN a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig
--- a/arch/i386/Kconfig 2003-03-03 20:04:08.000000000 +0100
+++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig 2003-03-03 19:58:48.000000000 +0100
@@ -18,15 +18,6 @@
bool
default y
-config SWAP
- bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
- default y
- help
- This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
- for socalled swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
- used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
- in your computer. If unusre say Y.
-
config SBUS
bool
diff -urN a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
--- a/init/Kconfig 2003-02-11 01:09:48.000000000 +0100
+++ b/init/Kconfig 2003-03-03 20:02:11.000000000 +0100
@@ -34,9 +34,18 @@
endmenu
-
menu "General setup"
+config SWAP
+ depends on X86
+ bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
+ default y
+ help
+ This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
+ for the so-called swap devices or swap files. There are used to
+ provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM presents in your
+ computer. If unsure, say Y.
+
config SYSVIPC
bool "System V IPC"
---help---
You choose. ;)
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
> [[email protected]]
>
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Ah, okay :) I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> > on it's placements. If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
>
> The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
> Right before HIMEM.
Please don't do this. While HIMEM could still be perceived as a processor
(architecture) feature, SWAP certainly doesn't qualify. We already have
enough misplaced options.
--
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]>
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Ah, okay :) I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> on it's placements. If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
Right before HIMEM.
Sam
===== arch/i386/Kconfig 1.46 vs edited =====
--- 1.46/arch/i386/Kconfig Mon Mar 3 03:14:31 2003
+++ edited/arch/i386/Kconfig Mon Mar 3 20:16:28 2003
@@ -18,15 +18,6 @@
bool
default y
-config SWAP
- bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
- default y
- help
- This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
- for socalled swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
- used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
- in your computer. If unusre say Y.
-
config SBUS
bool
@@ -624,6 +615,15 @@
This option is experimental, but believed to be safe,
and most disk controller BIOS vendors do not yet implement this feature.
+
+config SWAP
+ bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
+ default y
+ help
+ This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
+ for so called swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
+ used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
+ in your computer. If unsure say Y.
choice
prompt "High Memory Support"
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:19:08PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Ah, okay :) I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> > on it's placements. If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
>
> The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
> Right before HIMEM.
Looks fine to me.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:22:45 +0100
Tomas Szepe <[email protected]> wrote:
| > [[email protected]]
| >
| > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
| > > Ah, okay :) I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
| > > on it's placements. If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
| > > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
| >
| > The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
| > Right before HIMEM.
|
| Please don't do this. While HIMEM could still be perceived as a processor
| (architecture) feature, SWAP certainly doesn't qualify. We already have
| enough misplaced options.
Also makes no sense to me in Processor types & features.
--
~Randy
Sorry - yes, I meant there, as in the position :)
I'll let the others argue about where it should go ;)
Andrew Walrond
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> Why not? Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
> plenty use for it.
>
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > [[email protected]]
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Ah, okay :) I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> > > on it's placements. If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> > > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
> >
> > The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
> > Right before HIMEM.
>
> Please don't do this. While HIMEM could still be perceived as a processor
> (architecture) feature, SWAP certainly doesn't qualify. We already have
> enough misplaced options.
I would think that SWAP would belong with PREEMPT, since they are both
global characteristics of the o/s. Those who care can argue where that
should be.
I could believe that SMP would belong in the same place, since it's a
global option not specific to a single architecture. Any of these could be
greyed out or undisplayed for the few architechtures which don't support
them.
There are arguably others.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.