Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:36:16 -0700 | From | jw schultz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_NR_CPUS, redux |
| |
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 11:28:36AM -0700, Robert Love wrote: > On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 11:21, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote: > > > Perhaps it's just because I'm coming in late, but I cannot understand why > > NR_CPUS cannot be as low as 4 by default, for all archs, and then in the > > kernel boot messages, should more be found than is configured for a message is > > emitted to say "reconfigure your kernel", and continue with the number it was > > configured for. I personally only rarely see 2-way boxes, 4-way is pretty > > rare, and anything more must surely count as very specialized. > > Ugh let's stop this thread now. Two points: > > (a) imo, the kernel should support out-of-the-box the maximum > number of CPUs it can handle. Be lucky we now have a > configure option to change that. But that does not matter.. > > (b) Right now it is 32. Now you can change it... if you want > to change the current behavior by _default_ why don't we > suggest that _after_ this is accepted into 2.5? I.e., one > battle at a time.
By that logic CONFIG_SMP should be "y" by default.
Now i find the name NR_CPUS a bit misleading it seems that this should be MAX_CPUS but "legacy is as legacy does".
Using the names i prefer i would suggest in *config we replace CONFIG_SMP with CONFIG_MAX_CPUS and give it a default of 1. Then make CONFIG_SMP dependant on CONFIG_MAX_CPUS > 1. That way we avoid adding yet another option. KISS for the users.
-- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws
Remember Cernan and Schmitt - 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/
| |