A few things that I've added, that I want comments on:
o A "Code maturity"-menu for PPC, as it was the only port without this
menu
o A "Prompt for drivers/code flagged DANGEROUS" option in the
code-maturity section that is conditional depending on EXPERIMENTAL
o (EXPERIMENTAL) has been added to all drivers inside CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL
if's, and CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL if's has been added where missing
o All drivers/code saying DANGEROUS has been changed from
CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL to CONFIG_DANGEROUS
o Some smaller fixes has been made (for instance, there was two
occurences of "Frame-buffer support" in the MIPS-port
o I've indented all the config-files in a uniform way
I've of course also included the other patches I did earlier in the same
direction.
Now, my main question is:
"Is this something I'm going to hate myself forever for doing -- something
that noone will accept, or is it something that could actually be accepted
into the kernel mainstream?"
My patches are against v2.3.17, if anyone wonders.
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
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/