From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:43:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:43:53 -0500 Received: from noodles.codemonkey.org.uk ([213.152.47.19]:31208 "EHLO noodles.internal") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 14:43:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 19:50:00 +0000 From: Dave Jones To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Robert Love , Adrian Bunk , "Robert P. J. Day" , Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: observations on 2.5 config screens Message-ID: <20030108195000.GA670@codemonkey.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Bill Davidsen , Robert Love , Adrian Bunk , "Robert P. J. Day" , Linux kernel mailing list References: <1042041195.694.2734.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:36:06PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > I guess, depending on your definition of fundemental. I would put any > option which affects the kernel as a whole in that category, myself. > Compiling with frame pointers comes to mind, since every object file is > changed and there are performance implications as well. No-one other than kernel hackers should be playing with that option, hence it's in the kernel hacking menu. > Processor option would select the processor and any architecture dependent > options, I would think. Something like "kernel characteristics" could have > options like smp. SMP isn't a processor option ? Dave -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs