mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@redhat.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: allow ZONE_DMA to be configurable
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:03:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101015030336.GB9640@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1bdcb8fa-d858-4a79-ae28-de8c94d13f5f@email.android.com>


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> I don't like the CONFIG_EXPERT prefix, just because it makes it hard 
> to move things into and out of this rubric, and that's bad... 

Hm, i'm not sure i agree.

> (consider: "oh, that would mean this *huge* patch) ...

If config options are present in many places in the source that's an 
independent problem already.

Typically kconfig variables are used in a few places and any rename 
patch makes it clear in all those places what happened: either a config 
variable became obscure (moved into CONFIG_EXPERT's scope), *or* a 
config variable became much less obscure (moved out of that scope) - 
both important pieces of information, which i dont mind to see happen in 
every place that gets affected.

Put differently: if we have a CONFIG_EXPERT_ kconfig variable in so many 
places in the kernel that it creates a huge patch then we have some 
other kind of problem: it either should not be an expert option (it's 
too common or too important), or it should not be an option at all (it's 
a perpetual build failure risk).

Also, historically we have not been moving kconfig variables in and out 
of CONFIG_EMBEDDED all that often for this to be an issue in the future.

> [...] not to mention that what is CONFIG_EXPERT on one platform may 
> not be for another! [...]

Dunno, that i'd consider more of a bug. If an architecture absolutely 
needs to configure in or out a kernel feature then it should not be 
under CONFIG_EXPERT on other architectures either: it only sets us up 
for cross-arch build failures if say the CONFIG_EXPERT dependency is 
present on x86.

Or, if an architecture still wants it that way, it better be explicitly 
aware that it's configuring in a little-tested kconfig switch of the 
kerenl.

I.e. something being an 'expert option' is synonymous with obscurity and 
potential weirdness on at least one arch - which i dont see as 
inherently wrong to be visible (via the name) on other architectures 
either.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2010-10-15  3:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-10-14  0:15 David Rientjes
2010-10-14  0:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14  0:42   ` David Rientjes
2010-10-14  0:44     ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14  0:49       ` David Rientjes
2010-10-14  1:21         ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14  1:48           ` David Rientjes
2010-10-14  2:38             ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14  3:55               ` David Rientjes
2010-10-14  4:37             ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14  4:46               ` David Rientjes
2010-10-14 15:38                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14 16:00                   ` Pekka Enberg
2010-10-14 17:44                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14 18:34                       ` Ingo Molnar
2010-10-14 19:35                         ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-14 20:40                           ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-15  3:03                             ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2010-10-15  4:45                               ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-15  9:05                               ` David Rientjes
2010-10-15 15:06                                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-10-14 22:08                   ` David Rientjes
2010-10-14  8:10 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-14  8:32   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-14 22:15   ` David Rientjes
2010-10-14 22:32     ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-15  3:10       ` Ingo Molnar
2010-10-15  9:11         ` David Rientjes
2010-10-15  9:09       ` David Rientjes
2010-10-21 14:56         ` Christoph Lameter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20101015030336.GB9640@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cdahlin@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®