From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933152AbZAPN7Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:59:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753841AbZAPN7I (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:59:08 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:37840 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753797AbZAPN7H (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:59:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:58:51 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jan Beulich Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fully honor "nolapic" (take 2) Message-ID: <20090116135851.GA7153@elte.hu> References: <4970818A.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20090116124548.GC5421@elte.hu> <49709C94.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> <20090116134243.GC14874@elte.hu> <49709EF7.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49709EF7.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> 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 * Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Ingo Molnar 16.01.09 14:42 >>> > > > >* Jan Beulich wrote: > > > >> >>> Ingo Molnar 16.01.09 13:45 >>> > >> > > >> >* Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > > >> >> + if (disable_apic) { > >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC > >> >> + disable_ioapic_setup(); > >> >> +#endif > >> >> + return; > >> >> + } > >> > > >> > Shouldnt that #ifdef be avoided by always providing the function - > >> > just it is a NOP inline in the !CONFIG_X86_IO_APIC case? > >> > >> That would make for a much bigger patch, since the io_apic.h doesn't > >> (and imo shouldn't) be included without that config option. > > > >But we are using io-apic functionality in that file, so we should include > >io_apic.h, right? > > I don't generally (i.e. when !X86_IO_APIC) think so - anything accessing > stuff from io_apic.c is guarded by a similar #ifdef. and wrongly so - it proliferates ugly #ifdefs and sets us up for build failures like that. Developers cannot be expected to keep every build option in mind - we should provide an as homogenic and kconfig-invariant environment as possible. Ingo