Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jan 2015 21:16:36 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] kernel: Conditionally support non-root users, groups and capabilities | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
Hi Josh,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:01 PM, <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote: >> > + select NON_ROOT >> >> Is there a specific reason why you chose to use "select NON_ROOT" >> instead of "depends on NON_ROOT" for all these options? >> As configuring NON_ROOT=n is quite a drastic decision, I don't >> think you should let that be revertable such easily by all those selects. > > In the past, there's been quite a bit of negative feedback about > "depends on", because that makes various options invisible and > un-enableable. (Kconfig can be awkward that way.) However, I think > it'd be perfectly reasonable to make all of these "depends on NON_ROOT" > instead, if there aren't any objections to doing so.
There's been more complaints about select, as it bypasses other dependencies...
> (As long as we're bikeshedding: CONFIG_MULTIUSER or CONFIG_MULTI_USER?)
(I had checked before)
ARM already has a MULTI_USER define, which does something different. CIFS has CIFS_MOUNT_MULTIUSER.
So CONFIG_MULTIUSER sounds like the best color ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |