> Uh, Jordan:
> 
> 1) `userconfig' has absolutely *nothing* to do with the problem this
> person was talking about, and

Sorry, I thought he was discussing some kind of hardware/kernel
conflict, for which userconfig can be quite useful in dealing with.  I
only read one "slice" of the conversation and may well have inferred
the wrong meaning.

> 2) it's pretty heavily i386-specific, and would require a complete
> rewrite to make it work at all.

As I said in my previous message, the implementation itself is almost
an irrelevant detail anyway.  It's the overall idea that counts.

I'd also hope that none of your other platforms are even remotely as
braindamaged (from a hardware perspective) as the PC, so it's more
than likely that `userconfig' only makes sense for the i386 port
anyway.

					Jordan