From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD? Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:39:37 +0100 Message-ID: <20060224023937.GC3674@stusta.de> References: <20060214152218.GI10701@stusta.de> <200602240016.00317.ak@suse.de> <20060223233328.GB3674@stusta.de> <200602240055.30603.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602240055.30603.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andi Kleen Cc: Dave Jones , Dmitry Torokhov , davej@codemonkey.org.uk, Zwane Mwaikambo , Samuel Masham , Jan Engelhardt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 12:55:30AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Friday 24 February 2006 00:33, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > EMBEDDED is the wrong option, since the semantics of embedded is "show > > more options to allow additional space savings". It is not and should > > not be abused as an option to hide random options from users. > > I disagree. And I originally added most EMBEDDED users to the kernel. > The purpose I added it for was to hide options that only useful > for a very limited userbase but cause big or subtle trouble when set > wrong. P4_CLOCKMOD clearly qualifies. This matches neither the description of the EMBEDDED option nor all other usages in the kernel I have seen until now. We need an additional option for such cases, but overloading EMBEDDED with more than one meaning is definitely not a good idea. > -Andi cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed