Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:32:12 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.19pre3aa2 |
| |
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 05:16:20PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 05:12:59PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > Correct. I think the CONFIG option isn't worthwhile in the first place > > and this is why I only left the CONFIG_M686 knowing most smp kernels are > > compiled that way. 4096bytes of virtual vmallc space and some houndred > > bytes of bytecode doesn't worth the config option. If something the > > CONFIG_F00F would be more a documentation effort 8). > > nononono! CONFIG_FOOF is a derived symbol from whatever CONFIG_Mx8x > is set. Much in the way we derive CONFIG_X86_WP_WORKS_OK, CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE > and freinds..
Of course I perfectly understood what you meant. I designed the current way of doing the CONFIG_X86 some years back so I know what you mean.
Just re-read the previous email with that in mind. What I meant is that 4096bytes of virtual vmalloc space doesn't worth a CONFIG_F00F IMHO. While CONFIG_F00F isn't wasted user time because the user won't see it, it still clobbers the source code, but nevertheless it is better than the current halfway broken #ifdef CONFIG_M686 and that's why I said if somebody bothers to verymicrooptimize I'm ok, I just won't microoptimize myself and I'd drop CONFIG_M686 instead.
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |