linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFD: Does CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC still make sense?
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:20:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131011062002.GC4975@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52573279.9020404@zytor.com>


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to wrap my head around if there are use cases where disabling 
> either CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC or CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC would ever make sense 
> anymore.
> 
> I am guessing there are probably some small number of embedded systems 
> which still don't have LAPICs, but is it a significant number and does 
> anyone care for new kernels?  We are not talking about discontinuing 
> support for non-APIC configurations, just the configuration option.

I guess it depends on the kernel size difference. If it's more than just a 
few K then a patch will creep back via some CONFIG_EXPERT "reduce kernel 
bloat" route.

The thing is, if we allow non-apic configurations then we have paid most 
of the modularization, #ifdef and general maintenance price already. 
Adding a Kconfig just makes it more testable and breakages more apparent.

Unless I missed some aspects of this that would allow us to simplify code 
significantly that is.

Thanks,

	Ingo

      reply	other threads:[~2013-10-11  6:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-10 23:04 RFD: Does CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC still make sense? H. Peter Anvin
2013-10-11  6:20 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131011062002.GC4975@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).