Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753842AbZAFPE4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:04:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752977AbZAFPEq (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:04:46 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53247 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750928AbZAFPEq (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:04:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:04:44 +0100 From: Nick Piggin To: Mike Travis Cc: Jack Steiner , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Cliff Wickman , Russ Anderson Subject: Re: [patch] x86: make UV support optional Message-ID: <20090106150444.GI16738@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090106060348.GA16738@wotan.suse.de> <20090106143330.GB18913@sgi.com> <49637090.8010501@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49637090.8010501@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1493 Lines: 38 On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:54:08AM -0800, Mike Travis wrote: > Jack Steiner wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:03:48AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> UV is fairly rare.... and much of the support is already there to cope with > >> 32-bit builds. So this makes sense I think. > >> > > > > > > Looks ok to me. One suggestion though. There is a MAXSMP config > > option. I would suggest enabling UV if MAXSMP is enabled. This > > will help ensure that UV is tested more frequently & may minimize > > regressions. > > > > > > --- jack > > Nick - would you add something like this to your patch? Thanks! Mike > --- > Subject: x86: enable UV when MAXSMP is configured. > > We want UV code to be tested even for non-UV architectures. Enabling > MAXSMP specifies "maximizing the system capabitlity" and UV is one of > these methods. Also helps distros select the correct config options > for their default configurations. I don't really follow. The config option I added is very visible and clear, isn't it? I don't think MAXSMP means that, otherwise it would basically be allyesconfig. I wouldn't object to have a platform types menu like the processor types one. Or a generic architecture checkbox to select some of these things together. -- 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/