Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 17:12:04 -0800
From:   Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] mm, slub: disable SYSFS support with
 CONFIG_SLUB_TINY
Message-ID: <Y37E5Dpu/FLi7wrA@P9FQF9L96D.corp.robot.car>
References: <20221121171202.22080-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
 <20221121171202.22080-4-vbabka@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221121171202.22080-4-vbabka@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 06:11:53PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Currently SLUB enables its sysfs support depending unconditionally on
> the general CONFIG_SYSFS setting. To reduce the configuration
> combination space, make CONFIG_SLUB_TINY disable SLUB's sysfs support by
> reusing the existing SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS define. It is unlikely that
> real tiny systems would combine CONFIG_SLUB_TINY with CONFIG_SYSFS, but
> a randconfig might.

Hm, don't we want to introduce CONFIG_SLAB_SYSFS instead?
I believe many users don't really need it, even if they don't
need CONFIG_SLUB_TINY and they do have CONFIG_SYSFS.

Thanks!