2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Andrew Walrond]

Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:

  [*] Support for paging of anonymous memory

It shouldn't really be there, should it?

Andrew Walrond

Re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:15:34PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:
> 
>   [*] Support for paging of anonymous memory
> 
> It shouldn't really be there, should it?

Why not?  Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
plenty use for it.

re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Tomas Szepe]

> [hch@infradead.org]
> 
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:15:34PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:
> > 
> >   [*] Support for paging of anonymous memory
> > 
> > It shouldn't really be there, should it?
> 
> Why not?  Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
> plenty use for it.

Andrew probably means the problem is in _where_ the entry shows up in
menuconfig (and he's right).  I believe he didn't mean to question the
existence of the option.

-- 
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>

Re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:49:06PM +0100, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:15:34PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> > > Just done a pull and now the first entry of make menuconfig is:
> > > 
> > >   [*] Support for paging of anonymous memory
> > > 
> > > It shouldn't really be there, should it?
> > 
> > Why not?  Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
> > plenty use for it.
> 
> Andrew probably means the problem is in _where_ the entry shows up in
> menuconfig (and he's right).  I believe he didn't mean to question the
> existence of the option.

Ah, okay :)  I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
on it's placements.  If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.

re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Tomas Szepe]

> [hch@infradead.org]
> 
> Ah, okay :)  I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> on it's placements.  If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.


*** Approach A ***

diff -urN a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig
--- a/arch/i386/Kconfig	2003-03-03 20:04:08.000000000 +0100
+++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig	2003-03-03 20:08:29.000000000 +0100
@@ -5,6 +5,9 @@
 
 mainmenu "Linux Kernel Configuration"
 
+
+menu "Architecture specific options"
+
 config X86
 	bool
 	default y
@@ -23,9 +26,9 @@
 	default y
 	help
 	  This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
-	  for socalled swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
-	  used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
-	  in your computer.  If unusre say Y.
+	  for the so-called swap devices or swap files.  There are used to
+	  provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM presents in your
+	  computer.  If unsure, say Y.
 
 config SBUS
 	bool
@@ -38,6 +41,9 @@
 	bool
 	default y
 
+endmenu
+
+
 source "init/Kconfig"
 
 
*** Approach B ***

diff -urN a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig
--- a/arch/i386/Kconfig	2003-03-03 20:04:08.000000000 +0100
+++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig	2003-03-03 19:58:48.000000000 +0100
@@ -18,15 +18,6 @@
 	bool
 	default y
 
-config SWAP
-	bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
-	default y
-	help
-	  This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
-	  for socalled swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
-	  used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
-	  in your computer.  If unusre say Y.
-
 config SBUS
 	bool
 
diff -urN a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
--- a/init/Kconfig	2003-02-11 01:09:48.000000000 +0100
+++ b/init/Kconfig	2003-03-03 20:02:11.000000000 +0100
@@ -34,9 +34,18 @@
 
 endmenu
 
-
 menu "General setup"
 
+config SWAP
+	depends on X86
+	bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
+	default y
+	help
+	  This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
+	  for the so-called swap devices or swap files.  There are used to
+	  provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM presents in your
+	  computer.  If unsure, say Y.
+
 config SYSVIPC
 	bool "System V IPC"
 	---help---



You choose. ;)

-- 
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>

Re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Ah, okay :)  I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> on it's placements.  If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.

The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
Right before HIMEM.

	Sam

===== arch/i386/Kconfig 1.46 vs edited =====
--- 1.46/arch/i386/Kconfig	Mon Mar  3 03:14:31 2003
+++ edited/arch/i386/Kconfig	Mon Mar  3 20:16:28 2003
@@ -18,15 +18,6 @@
 	bool
 	default y
 
-config SWAP
-	bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
-	default y
-	help
-	  This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
-	  for socalled swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
-	  used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
-	  in your computer.  If unusre say Y.
-
 config SBUS
 	bool
 
@@ -624,6 +615,15 @@
 
 	  This option is experimental, but believed to be safe,
 	  and most disk controller BIOS vendors do not yet implement this feature.
+
+config SWAP
+	bool "Support for paging of anonymous memory"
+	default y
+	help
+	  This option allows you to choose whether you want to have support
+	  for so called swap devices or swap files in your kernel that are
+	  used to provide more virtual memory than the actual RAM present
+	  in your computer. If unsure say Y.
 
 choice
 	prompt "High Memory Support"

Re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 08:19:08PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Ah, okay :)  I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> > on it's placements.  If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
> 
> The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
> Right before HIMEM.

Looks fine to me.

re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Tomas Szepe]

> [sam@ravnborg.org]
> 
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Ah, okay :)  I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> > on it's placements.  If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
> 
> The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
> Right before HIMEM.

Please don't do this.  While HIMEM could still be perceived as a processor
(architecture) feature, SWAP certainly doesn't qualify.  We already have
enough misplaced options.

-- 
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>

Re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:22:45 +0100
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com> wrote:

| > [sam@ravnborg.org]
| > 
| > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
| > > Ah, okay :)  I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
| > > on it's placements.  If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
| > > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
| > 
| > The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
| > Right before HIMEM.
| 
| Please don't do this.  While HIMEM could still be perceived as a processor
| (architecture) feature, SWAP certainly doesn't qualify.  We already have
| enough misplaced options.

Also makes no sense to me in Processor types & features.

--
~Randy

Re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Andrew Walrond]

Sorry - yes, I meant there, as in the position :)
I'll let the others argue about where it should go ;)

Andrew Walrond

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> Why not?  Even if you never want to use a swapless kernel there's still
> plenty use for it.
> 

re: 2.5-bk menuconfig format problem

[Bill Davidsen]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Tomas Szepe wrote:

> > [sam@ravnborg.org]
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 06:53:37PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Ah, okay :)  I newer use either menuconfig nor xconfig so I can't comment
> > > on it's placements.  If people who actually do use if feel that it's placed
> > > wrongly feel free to submit a patch to fix it.
> > 
> > The following patch moves it to the menu "Processor type & features"
> > Right before HIMEM.
> 
> Please don't do this.  While HIMEM could still be perceived as a processor
> (architecture) feature, SWAP certainly doesn't qualify.  We already have
> enough misplaced options.

I would think that SWAP would belong with PREEMPT, since they are both
global characteristics of the o/s. Those who care can argue where that
should be.

I could believe that SMP would belong in the same place, since it's a
global option not specific to a single architecture. Any of these could be
greyed out or undisplayed for the few architechtures which don't support
them.

There are arguably others.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.