[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090116135851.GA7153@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:58:51 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fully honor "nolapic" (take 2)
* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> >>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 16.01.09 14:42 >>>
> >
> >* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> 16.01.09 13:45 >>>
> >> >
> >> >* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> + if (disable_apic) {
> >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC
> >> >> + disable_ioapic_setup();
> >> >> +#endif
> >> >> + return;
> >> >> + }
> >> >
> >> > Shouldnt that #ifdef be avoided by always providing the function -
> >> > just it is a NOP inline in the !CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC case?
> >>
> >> That would make for a much bigger patch, since the io_apic.h doesn't
> >> (and imo shouldn't) be included without that config option.
> >
> >But we are using io-apic functionality in that file, so we should include
> >io_apic.h, right?
>
> I don't generally (i.e. when !X86_IO_APIC) think so - anything accessing
> stuff from io_apic.c is guarded by a similar #ifdef.
and wrongly so - it proliferates ugly #ifdefs and sets us up for build
failures like that. Developers cannot be expected to keep every build
option in mind - we should provide an as homogenic and kconfig-invariant
environment as possible.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists