[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1BAekFR0DVY4rfo@yury-laptop>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 11:22:50 -0700
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpumask: limit visibility of FORCE_NR_CPUS
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 02:22:40PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:22:00PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > In current form, FORCE_NR_CPUS is visible to all users building their
> > kernels, even not experts. It is also set in allmodconfig or allyesconfig,
> > which is not a correct behavior.
>
> Seems you forgot to update the commit message to explain the choise usage.
OK, I'll fold-in something like this:
The 'choice' and sudo config UNFORCE_NR_CPUS are used to ensure that
auto-generated configs that try to enable as much options as possible,
like allmodconfig, don't enable FORCE_NR_CPUS.
Is that what you mean?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists