Its right because it doesn't even compile otherwise.
> Although there is no chance of misconfiguration if one reads
> the Configure.help entry, to prevent even silly misconfiguration
People don't 8(
> you may consider patch #2, that makes CONFIG_PROC_FS depend
> on CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC (yes, I dont like the order, too - but
> there is no way to make CONFIG_BINFMT_MISC depend on CONFIG_PROC_FS),
Michael Chastain and others have been talking about this - there is a possible
'solution' for 2.3.x - which is to add a
requires CONFIG_something CONFIG_somethingelse
at the end of the scripts. Its just a bit close to 2.2 final to do this.
> or alternatively patch #3, that makes binfmt_misc compile
> conditionaly on CONFIG_PROC_FS (i.e. it leaves the user without
> binfmt_misc, if he/she was unable to select CONFIG_PROC_FS).
That seems sensible. You could also compile it printk("PROCfs support is required") return -ENXIO for PROC_FS=n if that seems better
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/