Re: [PATCH] make CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL invisible and default

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

On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 05:46:08PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:08:40PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:25:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:50:42PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> >> > This config item has not carried much meaning for a while now and is
> >> >> > almost always enabled by default. As agreed during the Linux kernel
> >> >> > summit, it should be removed. As a first step, remove it from being
> >> >> > listed, and default it to on. Once it has been removed from all
> >> >> > subsystem Kconfigs, it will be dropped entirely.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > CC: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >> >> > CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
> >> >> > CC: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
> >> >> > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> >> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> >> >> > CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is the first of a series of 202 patches removing EXPERIMENTAL from
> >> >> > all the Kconfigs in the tree. Should I send them all to lkml (with all
> >> >> > the associated CCs), or do people want to cherry-pick changes from my
> >> >> > tree? I don't want to needlessly flood the list.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/experimental
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I figure this patch can stand alone to at least make EXPERIMENTAL go
> >> >> > away from the menus, and give us a taste of what the removal would do
> >> >> > to builds.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, I will bite...  How should I flag an option that is initially only
> >> >> intended for those willing to take some level of risk?
> >> >
> >> > In the text say "You really don't want to enable this option, use at
> >> > your own risk!"  Or something like that :)
> >>
> >> So, should I update the commit description to include a suggested
> >> alternative? (If so, which one?)
> >
> > Which do you prefer?
> 
> I think developers that want something harder that strongly worded
> text in the Kconfig title or description should throw a printk.

But having agreed-upon wording in the Kconfig title or description
is still goodness.  Those of us who want printk()s, add_taint()s,
or even WARN_ON()s can always add them.

							Thanx, Paul

> >> Who is going to carry this initial patch, btw?
> >
> > You?  :)
> 
> Do you mean to say I should ask Stephen to pull from one of my trees
> for linux-next? If so, I've made this now:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git linux-next
> 
> -Kees
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security
>