netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Compile-time versus run-time

To: Andrew Morton <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Compile-time versus run-time
From: Mark Peugeot <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3ABF2F8E.B212A96B@uow.edu.au>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Due to it's experimental nature, do you want Novices playing with this as
a module parameter, or would you rather that someone who at least knew how
to compile a kernal played with it... I would think the later would be
more appropriate.

Mark


On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:

> CONFIG_8139TOO_TUNE_TWISTER
>
>       This implements a function which might come in handy in case you
>       are using low quality on long cabling. It tries to match the
>       transceiver to the cable characteristics. This is experimental
>       since hardly documented by the manufacturer.  If unsure, say N.
>
> Jeff,
>
> don't you think this sort of thing should be a module option, and
> not a compile-time option?
>
> It's OK for you and me - we compile kernels occasionally.  But
> for most people, unless the distributor turns this on, they simply
> won't be able to access it.
>
> No?
>
> (And wouldn't it be nice to be able to get the same functionality
> which module options give us when using a statically linked driver?)
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>