From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761762AbZATO1z (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:27:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754791AbZATO1p (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:27:45 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47625 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750825AbZATO1o (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:27:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:27:33 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , steiner@sgi.com Subject: Re: [patch] x86: make UV support configurable Message-ID: <20090120142733.GD10224@elte.hu> References: <20090120033604.GF16304@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090120033604.GF16304@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nick Piggin wrote: > Fixed the EFI omission since the last patch. I have not changed the > Kconfig to include (what I think are) false dependencies (which really > frustrate me when things get badly tangled up). If people want to test > as much stuff as possible even that is not supported by their hardware, > we have allyesconfig/allmodconfig. I don't think UV is particularly > special in that respect (we allow Intel, AMD, etc CPUs to be configured > out) > > If anything, X86_UV should *select* MAXSMP, rather than the other way > around. That would be more logical, but even then I don't like adding > still a false dep because one might have a small UV system, or want to > test with different NR_CPUS. > > Anyway, I think this patch is good as-is. If someone wants to streamline > config options with subsequent patches, that's great. If Ingo can be > convinced of a better arrangement, fine. Applied to tip/x86/uv, thanks Nick! Ingo