Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100027-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:29:33 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-edac <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EDAC updates for v6.9
Message-ID: <20240312092933.GCZfAgfd1iw_sKvM4y@fat_crate.local>
References: <20240311155651.GAZe8pw0urOnUZj1y_@fat_crate.local>
 <CAHk-=whTBKoHrBpMxh7OHQ=pcdy6K2zqqsJOZeCC4xSqRXb5Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240312074504.GAZfAIANxTdC5Tb0vb@fat_crate.local>
 <ZfAdWtBt60hAx//4@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZfAdWtBt60hAx//4@gmail.com>

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:16:10AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> If you mean forcing CONFIG_SMP via 'select SMP' on x86 on the other
> hand, that's worth considering

Yeah, that.

> - although I think there will be a ton of extra cross-build breakage
> as most patches still get created & tested on x86.

I wanna say "this better be build-tested on the target architecture too"
but I can certainly see the use case of having to cross-build a UP
config.

> I think the most viable approach would be to make SMP the only model
> all across the kernel (and eventually removing the CONFIG_SMP option),
> while propagating UP data structures and locking primitives to the UP
> arch level, instead of having CONFIG_SMP #ifdefs in generic code.

Right, UP is a SMP machine with only 1 CPU. It should just work. :-P

> Maybe not today, but certainly in a few years.

It makes sense to aim for such a model, yap. Let's do it.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette