Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752723Ab2H1T3q (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:29:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35644 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751199Ab2H1T3p (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:29:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:25:27 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL Message-ID: <20120828192527.GA9921@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Jeff Garzik , Kees Cook , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20120827215356.GA27961@www.outflux.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1687 Lines: 35 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:10:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > This config item has not carried much meaning for a while now and is > > almost always enabled by default. Remove it and adjust various config > > logic and documentation. > > It does have meaning... !CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL means more stable. In > the past things would get CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL until they've been tried > in the field or otherwise hit some goal in the developer's mind. > > Is this a practical distinction? Probably not, as the markers often > go unmaintained... That's exactly the point. We have 'experimental' code that's been marked as such for 10-15 years. Maturity has nothing to do with that option, even if that was its original intention. The reality seems to be that near everyone sets EXPERIMENTAL because there's so much stuff tucked behind it, that they want at least some of it. They aren't choosing this option because they care about how mature the code is, they're setting it because they *need* something that it's hidden behind. What *might* be a more useful thing, is instead of adding new options depending on EXPERIMENTAL, introduce something like CONFIG_NEW_IN_3_6 (and a release or so later, when it's not considered new any more, drop it). But I'm not convinced that even this wouldn't succumb to the same neglect that EXPERIMENTAL has. Dave -- 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/