From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 20:54:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 20:53:59 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:49291 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 29 May 2002 20:53:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:54:06 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Alan Cox , john stultz cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Disable TSCs on CONFIG_MULTIQUAD Message-ID: <521610000.1022720046@flay> In-Reply-To: <1022722675.4124.337.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Anyway, if you really would rather see what you suggested, I'll happily >> change it (I do like the idea of breaking the CONFIG_X86_TSC_UNSYNCED >> notion out of CONFIG_MULTIQUAD). > > Not all the other places are "there is no TSC" most of them deal with > the ability to use a TSC. There are other setups where TSC exists but > isnt usable so distinguishing matters I think the CONFIG_X86_TSC option is most confusing (bad naming, at best). Without CONFIG_X86_TSC: You get the ability to have a TSC or not, both code paths are compiled in, and it dynamically detects at boot time. You can override this with the "notsc" option, or overriding the tsc_disable variable, as we did here. With CONFIG_X86_TSC: You remove all the code which supports non-TSC systems. Perhaps I'm just mentally slow, but I think my little brain would find this area easier of it was called CONFIG_X86_ONLY_TSC or some such. So if John's patch was rewritten to leave the CPU type switching on CONFIG_X86_TSC, then have the multiquad switch turn that into CONFIG_X86_ONLY_TSC (and change the in code #ifdefs to that) would that be more palletable? Would make things more readable in the main code to my mind .... M.