Subject: Re: [PATCH] new option BEEP_ONHALT_FOREVER
To: Julio M. Merino Vidal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jachym Holecek <email@example.com>
Date: 05/21/2006 00:40:46
# Julio M. Merino Vidal 2006-05-21:
> On 5/20/06, Jachym Holecek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> ># Julio M. Merino Vidal 2006-05-20:
> >> On 5/20/06, Mátyás János <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 == -1 (or maybe
> >> >> 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.
Well, not necessarily true ("gdb is powerful"), but
> This was already discussed.
OK, I forgot about that. For those interested, the discussion starts