* CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES vs. CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT
@ 2009-10-20 9:10 Jan Beulich
2009-10-20 13:45 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2009-10-20 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mingo, tglx, hpa; +Cc: linux-kernel
What is the reason for having these, under various conditions disagreeing
(see i386_defconfig), but supposedly redundant auto-selected config settings?
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES vs. CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT
2009-10-20 9:10 CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES vs. CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT Jan Beulich
@ 2009-10-20 13:45 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2009-10-20 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Arjan van de Ven; +Cc: tglx, hpa, linux-kernel
* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> What is the reason for having these, under various conditions
> disagreeing (see i386_defconfig), but supposedly redundant
> auto-selected config settings?
Mostly historic crappiness. Patches that clean up the situation would be
welcome :)
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-20 13:45 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-10-20 9:10 CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_BYTES vs. CONFIG_X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT Jan Beulich
2009-10-20 13:45 ` Ingo Molnar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome