From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Holt Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:32:57 +0000 Subject: Re: Pondering machvec ... was: [Patch] Remove sn2_defconfig. Message-Id: <20080815183257.GP6824@sgi.com> List-Id: References: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA309B82A07@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA309B82A07@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org I am not addressing anything other than the sn2_defconfig, but it has gotten so stale that nobody I know inside SGI uses it any longer. We either maintain our own config file or start with the generic_defconfig and adjust the things we need. If any of our engineers wanted to eliminate the mach_vec stuff, we would likely start from the generic_defconfig and change _GENERIC to _SN2. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:20:03AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > Not really a patch as much as a remove this file request. Now that > > generic_defconfig supports all the configurations SGI currently supports > > and has NR_CPUS and NR_NODES at our largest configurations, we have no > > reason to maintain the extra defconfig file. > > I'm wondering whether we really want to do this ... and in turn wondering > about the value of the "generic" vs. system specific config files and the > whole machvec mechanism. I don't think I understand your argument. Are you essentially saying we should consider eliminating the mach_vec stuff entirely? If so, will we essentially be saying that the distros need to build a seperate kernel for each of tiger, zx1, sn2, and uv? Thanks, Robin