Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
       Christopher Hoover <ch@murgatroid.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.68 FUTEX support should be optional
In-Reply-To: <3EC29CB2.4030707@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0305141246180.27329-100000@home.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1270
Lines: 29


On Wed, 14 May 2003, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> 
> Current == current development.  LinuxThreads is not developed anymore
> and with nptl futexes are mandatory.

Yes, I'm also not very eager to make "core functionality" a config option. 
The confusion with the INPUT layer config options was mighty, and none of 
it pleasant. And the *BSD's have historically had totally stupid problems 
with programs like Wine etc requireing kernel recompiles just because they 
made code functionality like vm86 mode or LDT support be a config option.

I don't see the point in dropping futexes except perhaps in a very 
controlled embedded environment, but if that is the case, then a PC config 
should just force it to "y" and not even ask the user. 

We absolutely do NOT want the situation where a program will not work just 
because the user forgot some config option that mostly isn't needed.

And futexes _are_ going to be needed. Any sane high-performance threading 
implementation _will_ use them. No ifs, buts or maybe's.

		Linus

-
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/