From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758800AbbFBLfz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:35:55 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]:36893 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752923AbbFBLfr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Jun 2015 07:35:47 -0400
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 13:35:42 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Cleanup Kconfig
Message-ID: <20150602113542.GA3443@gmail.com>
References: <20150602091455.GW19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150602091455.GW19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> 
> While looking at arch/x86/Kconfig I noticed a lot of if X86_{32,64}
> clauses in the X86 symbol. Its much simpler to simply but these selects
> in the right symbol and do away with the conditionals.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 8fec04407245..a259db4cfe8c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -11,6 +11,12 @@ config X86_32
>  	depends on !64BIT
>  	select CLKSRC_I8253
>  	select HAVE_UID16
> +	select HAVE_AOUT
> +	select HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
> +	select ARCH_WANT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION
> +	select MODULES_USE_ELF_REL
> +	select CLONE_BACKWARDS
> +	select OLD_SIGACTION

So I'd rather do it the other way around: move the remaining selects from X86_32 
and X86_64 to the X86 section, and maybe group them by bitness.

The advantage: accidental duplication is more obviously wrong and a single 
feature's bitness-presence is obvious at a glance.

Thanks,

	Ingo