From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262249AbVG0OSL (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262257AbVG0OSL (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:11 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:20101 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262249AbVG0OSJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:17:54 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Steven Rostedt Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO configurable Message-ID: <20050727141754.GA25356@elte.hu> References: <1122473595.29823.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1122473595.29823.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Steven Rostedt wrote: > The following patch makes the MAX_RT_PRIO and MAX_USER_RT_PRIO > configurable from the make *config. This is more of a proposal since > I'm not really sure where in Kconfig this would best fit. I don't see > why these options shouldn't be user configurable without going into > the kernel headers to change them. i'd not do this patch, mainly because the '100 priority levels' thing is pretty much an assumption in lots of userspace code. The patch to make it easier to redefine it is of course fine and was accepted, but i dont think we want to make it explicit via .config. It's a bit like with the 3:1 split: you can redefine it easily via include files, but it's not configurable via .config, because many people would just play with it and would see things break. so unless there's really a desire from distributions to actually change the 100 RT-prio levels (and i dont sense such a desire), we shouldnt do this. Ingo