Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:07:24PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >>> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 04:18:54PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >>> >> On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 09:30:29AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>  > > I think Kconfig is mostly what distro would like to use the thing is
> >>> >>  > > the Kconfig text needs to be there upfront when its merged, not two
> >>> >>  > > months later, since then it too late for a distro to notice.
> >>> >>  > >
> >>> >>  > > I'd bet most distros would read the warnings, but in a lot of cases
> >>> >>  > > the warning don't exist until its too late.
> >>> >>  >
> >>> >>  > In the case of CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS you are quite right, the warning
> >>> >>  > should have been there from the beginning and was not.  I suppose you
> >>> >>  > could argue that the warning was not sufficiently harsh in the case of
> >>> >>  > CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ, but either way it did get ignored:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Maybe if we had a universally agreed upon tag for kconfig, like
> >>> >> "distro recommendation: N" that would make things obvious, and also allow
> >>> >> those of us unfortunate enough to maintain distro kernels to have something
> >>> >> to easily grep for.  This would also catch the case when you eventually (hopefully)
> >>> >> flip from an N to a Y.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> There will likely still be some distros that will decide they know better
> >>> >> (and I'm pretty sure eventually I'll find reason to do so myself), but it at least
> >>> >> gives the feature maintainer the "I told you so" clause.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Something we do quite often for our in-development kernels is enable something
> >>> >> that's shiny, new and unproven, and then when we branch for a release, we turn
> >>> >> it back off.  It would be great if a lot of this kind of thing could be more automated.
> >>> >
> >>> > One approach would be to have CONFIG_DISTRO, so that experimental
> >>> > features could use "depends on !DISTRO", but also to have multiple
> >>> > "BLEEDING" symbols.  For example, given a CONFIG_DISTRO_BLEEDING_HPC
> >>> > and CONFIG_DISTRO_BLEEDING_RT, CONFIG_RCU_USER_QS might eventually
> >>> > use the following clause:
> >>> >
> >>> >         depends on !DISTRO || DISTRO_BLEEDING_HPC || DISTRO_BLEEDING_RT
> >>> >
> >>> > A normal distro would define DISTRO, a distro looking to provide bleeding-edge
> >>> > HPC or real-time features would also define DISTRO_BLEEDING_HPC or
> >>> > DISTRO_BLEEDING_RT, respectively.
> >>> >
> >>> > Does that make sense, or am I being overly naive?
> >>>
> >>> I think we should avoid any global configs that disable things. We'll
> >>> just end up in the same place with distros again.
> >>
> >> So you believe that we should taint the kernel or splat on boot to
> >> warn distros off of features that might not be ready for 100 million
> >> users?  Or do you have some other approach in mind?
> >
> > Personally, I think taint+printk seems like the right way to go.
> 
> Actually, I think printk is sufficient. I don't want kernel taint to
> become the new CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL. :)

OK, I'll bite...

Why would kernel taint be more likely to become the new CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
than printk() would?

							Thanx, Paul