Re: [PATCH] documentation: make it clear that sysfs is optional

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

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?

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/