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

[Greg KH]

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...
--
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/