From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755624AbZG0XYX@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755624AbZG0XYX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:24:23 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750833AbZG0XYW
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:24:22 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59363 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750737AbZG0XYW (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:24:22 -0400
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:21:45 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lgrijincu@ixiacom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] documentation: make it clear that sysfs is optional
Message-ID: <20090727232144.GA29954@suse.de>
References: <20090727090642.0e495919.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
 <20090727161031.GA15328@suse.de>
 <20090727091824.38d55ea1.randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
 <20090727162601.GA3632@suse.de>
 <20090727224930.GB6932@khazad-dum.debian.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090727224930.GB6932@khazad-dum.debian.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 07:49:30PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 09:18:24AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:10:33 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 09:06:42AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > > > The original text suggested that sysfs is mandatory and always
> > > > > compiled in the kernel.
> > > > 
> > > > But it should be :)
> > > 
> > > Well, you have the option of making it non-optional.
> > > 
> > > > Seriously, who turns sysfs off these days, does anyone?  If so, why?
> > > 
> > > Why is it configurable then?
> > 
> > Probably the same reason /proc is configurable.  No one ever turns it
> > off, but hey, it's possible :)
> 
> But does anyone ever test if the system doesn't go to lunch when you do
> that?

I have no idea, I doubt it...