From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hpa@zytor.com (H. Peter Anvin) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:41:52 -0800 Subject: [patch 1/2] kcmp: Make it to depend on CONFIG_KCMP In-Reply-To: <20130219221146.GR20312@moon> References: <20130219064800.719149796@openvz.org> <20130219065210.030802820@openvz.org> <5123444D.6000806@suse.cz> <20130219093154.GF20312@moon> <5123BC2B.6000304@zytor.com> <20130219182838.GL20312@moon> <20130219134256.f4cedf44.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20130219215432.GP20312@moon> <20130219140035.373ce4d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20130219221146.GR20312@moon> Message-ID: <51240DC0.7020302@zytor.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/19/2013 02:11 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 02:00:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> >>> I think this syscall is usefull even without c/r stuff. >>> That's why I made it with separate config option. >> >> hm, OK. >> >> But the patch also permits CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y, CONFIG_KCMP=n >> which surely isn't something which CRIU wants to support? > > Hmm, yes from one pov this feature is useful for out-of-c/r user, > from another pov -- we will have to ask users to turn on additional > CONFIG entries (which i'm sure not set by default in wide range of distros). > Thus it seems less paiful way is either make it obj-(CHECKPOINT_RESTORE) > as you proposed, or obj-y by default. The last can't be undone, so I'll > prepare the patch for obj-(CHECKPOINT_RESTORE) I think. > Well, that's what dependencies are for. Either way we might just want to wait for such a use case to appear, I don't know. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.