Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:46:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:46:47 -0500 Received: from svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com ([24.136.46.5]:35600 "EHLO svr-ganmtc-appserv-mgmt.ncf.coxexpress.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 7 Jan 2003 18:46:46 -0500 Subject: Re: observations on 2.5 config screens From: Robert Love To: Adrian Bunk Cc: "Robert P. J. Day" , Linux kernel mailing list In-Reply-To: <20030107233012.GP6626@fs.tum.de> References: <20030107233012.GP6626@fs.tum.de> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1041982936.694.786.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 (1.2.1-3) Date: 07 Jan 2003 18:42:16 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 991 Lines: 25 On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 18:30, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Robert, could you comment on whether it's really needed to have the > preemt option defined architecture-dependant? > > After looking through the arch/*/Kconfig files it seems to me that the > most problematic things might be architecture-specific parts of other > architecturs that don't even offer PREEMPT and the depends on CPU_32 in > arch/arm/Kconfig. I think it should be there. Plus, as you say, it is defined per-architecture. The real problem in my opinion is that the category is misnamed. It is not "processor options" except for the first couple. The majority of the options should be under a title of "core" or "architecture" or "system options" in my opinion. Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/