[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xhsmhzgd3lyqx.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 12:45:10 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
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>,
Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpumask: limit visibility of FORCE_NR_CPUS
On 04/11/22 15:36, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 05:43:53PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 19/10/22 15:59, Yury Norov wrote:
>> > +choice
>> > + prompt "Number of CPUs detection method"
>> > + default UNFORCE_NR_CPUS
>> > + depends on SMP && EXPERT
>>
>> What about moving the 'depends on EXPERT' onto FORCE_NR_CPUS? I find it
>> makes it easier to figure out the requirements for that option, and is
>> similar to how e.g. CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is handled.
>
> In case of PREEMPT_RT, there are some other options to choose. In case of
> FORCE_NR_CPUS there will be a choice with a single option, and it would be
> weird that the option is never used.
>
True, this would have been neater as a single config, but AIUI it's a
required "trick" for allyesconfig. I would have expected other configs to
have hit similar issues in the past, but didn't find any.
> I'd prefer to hide this choice for non-experts entirely.
Sure.
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists