Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262467AbTI0P1C (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:27:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262470AbTI0P1C (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:27:02 -0400 Received: from MAIL.13thfloor.at ([212.16.62.51]:50616 "EHLO mail.13thfloor.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262467AbTI0P07 (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:26:59 -0400 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:26:57 +0200 From: Herbert Poetzl To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Len Brown , marcelo@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Marcelo Tosatti , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alan Cox , "Nakajima, Jun" Subject: Re: HT not working by default since 2.4.22 Message-ID: <20030927152657.GA31944@DUK2.13thfloor.at> Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Garzik , Len Brown , marcelo@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Marcelo Tosatti , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alan Cox , "Nakajima, Jun" References: <3F738288.5060304@pobox.com> <1064547463.2981.833.camel@dhcppc4> <20030926034951.GA12338@gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030926034951.GA12338@gtf.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:49:51PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:37:43PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > > How about the more simple CONFIG_HYPERTHREAD or CONFIG_HT? > > > > > > If enabled and CONFIG_SMP is set, then we will attempt to discover HT > > > via ACPI tables, regardless of CONFIG_ACPI value. > > > > Yes, except I think we should keep the name CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY since it > > says exactly what it does. > > > > Hopefully I can make it looke clear in the menus -- > > I think on the config menus for CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY and CONFIG_ACPI > > should be mutually exclusive. > > Now that I've thought of it (aren't I humble), I rather like CONFIG_HT. > It's simple and it's effects should be obvious to both developer and > user: > > CONFIG_HT, CONFIG_ACPI == ACPI > !CONFIG_HT, CONFIG_ACPI == ACPI > CONFIG_HT, !CONFIG_ACPI == HT-only ACPI > !CONFIG_HT, !CONFIG_ACPI == no ACPI what about making the CONFIG_HT disappear when CONFIG_ACPI is selected? by the way I would name it CONFIG_HT_ACPI .. on the other hand, what do I know about that? ;) so just take it as another opinion ... best, Herbert > Following the "autoconf model", what we really want to be testing with > CONFIG_xxx is _features_, where possible. "hyperthreading: yes/no" is > IMO more clear than "do I want ht-only ACPI or full ACPI", while at the > same time being more fine-grained and future-proof. > > > > > Or... (I know multiple people will shoot me for saying this) we could > > > resurrect acpitable.[ch], and build that when CONFIG_ACPI is disabled. > > > > The question about configs is independent of the acpitable.[ch] vs > > table.c implementation. No, we should not return to maintaining two > > copies of the acpi table code. > > Point; agreed. > > Jeff > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/