On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:38:34 -0700 Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >From my perspective, this is where we're at: > > This patch seems to have been met with a lot of responses in the tone > of "this is not an appealing solution". Meanwhile, some of the > suggested alternative solutions have not worked out, and we are now at > a point where there's less interest in exploring alternatives and > arguments to merge as-is with only minor adjustments. Another consideration to make is difficulty of support. Having a tarball compressed headers may not be an appealing solution, but it isn't one that would be too much of an issue to support. Having a better interface would be difficult to get right, and if you get it wrong, you are now stuck with supporting something that may become a big pain to do so in the future. > I'd be a *lot* less hesitant if this went into debugfs or another > location than /proc, which is one of the most regression-sensitive > interfaces we have in the kernel. > I agree with this assessment. We shouldn't use config.gz as precedence for this solution. config.gz should have been in debugfs to begin with, but I don't believe debugfs was around when config.gz was introduced. (Don't have time to look into the history of the two). -- Steve
