Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:29:20 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/config config.y lang.l src/sys/conf makeLINT.mk makeLINT.sed src/sys/alpha/conf Makefile src/sys/i386/conf Makefile NOTES src/sys/pc98/conf Makefile NOTES src/sys/sparc64/conf Makefile NOTES Message-ID: <20050617162704.X56734@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200302262336.h1QNaxEO023353@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200302262336.h1QNaxEO023353@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > Implemented "nooption" and "nomakeoption" config(8) tokens. > Fixed memory leak in the "nodevice" option implementation. I've found 'nooption' an incredibly useful entry for kernel configuration files, as it makes maintaining incremental kernel configurations much easier. However, one of the problems I bump into every now and then is that, unlike the 'options' parameter, 'nooptions' performs no validation of its argument. I spent an hour or two this morning trying to track down what appeared to be a 4% performance regression, only to discover that my configuration file included "nooptions INVARIANTS_SUPPORT" instead of "nooptions INVARIANT_SUPPORT". Checking that the argument is a valid option, for some useful definition of valid, would be very helpful... Thanks, Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050617162704.X56734>