From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/Kconfig: Further simplify the NR_CPUS config
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 11:47:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180211104733.fcqt3f7iqsyhzdvw@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2cfadd13-7101-e6c8-9919-5269e0b29c29@infradead.org>
* Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
> On 02/10/2018 02:19 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> > At the risk of bike-shedding, we could remove all the
> >
> > default 1 if !SMP
> >
> > from the BEGIN/END/DEFAULT things, and perhaps just keep that part in NR_CPUS.
> >
> > I didn't check, but I *think* it would work to just do
> >
> > config NR_CPUS
> > int "Maximum number of CPUs" if SMP && !MAXSMP
> > range NR_CPUS_RANGE_BEGIN NR_CPUS_RANGE_END
> > default "1" if !SMP
> > default NR_CPUS_DEFAULT
> >
> > but maybe the "range" line would need an "if !SMP" on it too to avoid
> > the issue with "1" being out of range.,
>
> Yeah, I had an early test that failed due to something like that.
I *think* I slightly prefer the current approach, because while it's somewhat
verbose, the advantage is that this way we have *all* range considerations for a
given main hardware variant in a single place, and the main NR_CPUS config entry
is 'passive' in terms of determining the range used.
Plus the verbosity isn't really a problem either, as the whole approach is a
'verbose' expansion of an overly complex config expression, for better
readability/maintainability.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-11 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-09 22:01 [PATCH] x86: try to simplify " Randy Dunlap
2018-02-09 22:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-02-10 0:51 ` [PATCH v2] x86: " Randy Dunlap
2018-02-10 11:36 ` [PATCH] x86/Kconfig: Further simplify the " Ingo Molnar
2018-02-10 11:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-02-10 17:37 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-02-10 22:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-02-11 1:11 ` Randy Dunlap
2018-02-11 10:47 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2018-02-11 10:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-02-11 12:12 ` [tip:x86/urgent] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2018-02-11 12:11 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86/Kconfig: Simplify " tip-bot for Randy Dunlap
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=20180211104733.fcqt3f7iqsyhzdvw@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--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
Powered by JetHome