Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753503Ab1FRA2X (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:28:23 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.67]:14715 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750937Ab1FRA2W (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2011 20:28:22 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=CydOji7yfSfthqXhzPKF0RuY3x8GuLYCV8n/RAiqTdQ6xtg7qfzX/oEifRfcjnT5xb 6Y3m1hHrh9NBoh0xwdsg== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:28:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@sister.anvils To: "Robert P. J. Day" cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: should CONFIG_TMPFS_POSIX_ACL be so easily deselectable? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2674 Lines: 73 On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > > p.s. i do notice a fairly recent change to that config file related > > > to this: > > > > Yes, we were originally losing the oldconfig value of > > TMPFS_POSIX_ACL. > > > > It would be easy to ack a patch from you which changes that wording > > "If you don't know what Access Control Lists are, say N" to > > something more informative about what the sound userspace wants. > > agreed -- something as simple as "if you don't know, say Y"? :-) > or would it be better to actually take a line or two to explain the > consequences of that option? I think both. I've often thought "default N", "if unsure say Y" Kconfig options contradictory, but I can see the point in this case. Example or examples of the pain of saying N can be helpful. > (by the way, this option affects more than just sound.) Of course. > > > It would be harder to justify having SOUND select TMPFS, or changing > > the TMPFS_POSIX_ACL default to Y. It's been N forever, and that is > > how we prefer to add features. > > normally, i'd agree with you, except for the observation that, by > far, the default config files across all architectures select that > option. there are 48 config files that select it, and only 3 that > don't. sometimes, that's a compelling argument that maybe it *should* > be default yes. but for now, i'll just whip up a more informative > help sentence or two. I don't think architecture defconfig files necessarily correlate with Kconfig defaults. You could argue that they should do so (so far as arch-independent options are concerned), but I think the reality is that arch defconfigs are produced separately, at the whim of various people with different agendas. I may be wrong (if unsure, say Y!). > > rday > > p.s. as i mentioned, that option would appear to affect more than > just sound. as in: > > $ getfacl /dev/kvm > getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names > # file: dev/kvm > # owner: root > # group: kvm > user::rw- > user:rpjday:rw- > group::rw- > mask::rw- > other::--- > > so wouldn't KVM suddenly start behaving badly as well? Dunno. But certainly TMPFS_POSIX_ACLs are for whatever uses tmpfs POSIX ACLs are being put to, not specific to sound - but sound happens to be the case that wasted your time and Linus's. Hugh -- 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/