Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:05:38 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default
Message-ID: <20121003200538.GS2527@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20121002195042.GA16087@www.outflux.net>
 <20121003132538.GE13192@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20121003161702.GA22008@kroah.com>
 <20121003164712.GF2527@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20121003172142.GA5061@kroah.com>
 <20121003174606.GB637@somewhere>
 <20121003193653.GB30477@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121003193653.GB30477@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2286
Lines: 46

On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:36:53PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 07:46:18PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>  > > it in the kernel tree, unless we wanted people to use the option?
>  > 
>  > A solution could be to add that option under CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL and specify
>  > that it must only be enabled by developers for specific reasons (overhead,
>  > security). CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING falls into that category, right?
>  > 
>  > We have CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS that is a specific case. It's an intermediate state
>  > before we implement a true CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL. But the option is useless on its
>  > own for users. Worse, it introduces a real overhead. OTOH we want it to be upstream
>  > to make the development of full tickless feature more incremental.
>  > 
>  > Perhaps we should put that under CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL.
> 
> Overloading an existing config option for something unrelated seems unpleasant to me.
> It will only take a few people to start doing this, before it turns into a landslide
> where everyone ends up with DEBUG_KERNEL set.
> And what of people who already have DEBUG_KERNEL set ?
> 
> Just state what you wrote above in the kconfig.
> Currently, RCU_USER_QS says nothing about the fact that it's work in progress.

Fair point!

> The missing part that I don't have an answer for however, is what happens
> when you deem this production ready? Distro maintainers won't notice the
> kconfig text changing. But perhaps that's a good thing, and will lead to things
> only being enabled when people explicitly ask for them in distros.
> 
> Alternatively, if you really do want to go the path of a new config option,
> perhaps CONFIG_NOT_DISTRO_READY would spell things out more clearly.
> EXPERIMENTAL is such a wasteland it would take too much manpower to audit
> every case, and update accordingly, but scorching the earth and starting
> afresh might be feasible.

Heh!  We might just plan to scorch the earth and start afresh every few
years.  That might actually work...  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/