Subject: Re: [PATCH] new option BEEP_ONHALT_FOREVER
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <email@example.com>
Date: 05/21/2006 00:36:37
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 12:10:30AM +0200, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> On 5/20/06, Jachym Holecek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ># Julio M. Merino Vidal 2006-05-20:
> >> On 5/20/06, M=E1ty=E1s J=E1nos <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 20 May 2006 19:57:13 +0200
> >> >Quentin Garnier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'd rather see this implemented as BEEP_ONHALT_COUNT =3D=3D -1 (or =
> >> >> 0) than adding yet another option on the subject. It will make the
> >> >> patch (and documentation) much simpler and clearer.
> >> >
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >I think you are right. Here comes the simplified version.
> >> I think it'd be better if the check against -1 was done at run time
> >> rather than during build time. Ideally, this functionality could be
> >> configured through sysctl (I wanted to do it, but haven't had the time
> >> yet) and, in that situation, it needs to be checked at run time to
> >> work properly.
> >A sysctl sounds like overkill to me -- this is typical "set once"
> Except that users that do not want to rebuild the kernel will not be
> able to ever access this feature. This was already discussed.
Yes, they will, if you store it in a variable. gdb write. Anyway,
this is one of those discussions that ever so quicly end up into colour
picking for a small outdoor painting job.
Quentin Garnier - email@example.com - cube@NetBSD.org
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----