[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5ca0f92-0909-68af-16e0-582f47d8e424@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 07:23:31 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@...rosoft.com>,
Saurabh Sengar <ssengar@...ux.microsoft.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
"wei.liu@...nel.org" <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
"Michael Kelley (LINUX)" <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/Kconfig: Allow CONFIG_X86_MPPARSE disable for OF
platforms
On 6/2/23 05:22, Saurabh Singh Sengar wrote:
> Furthermore, I would like to learn about the rationale behind disallowing the
> disablement of CONFIG_X86_MPPARSE when MP tables are not in use. Considering
> that we compile out the features we don't support, wouldn't it be acceptable to
> allow users to customize their configurations in this manner? Allowing the
> disablement of CONFIG_X86_MPPARSE would provide greater flexibility and
> efficiency for those who do not utilize MP tables.
If someone sent a patch, I'd certainly look and figure out what
"flexibility" and "efficiency" it would provide. But, honestly, it
would just just be noise if it doesn't solve an _actual_ problem.
Would anyone care or notice the "flexibility" and "efficiency" it would
provide?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists