Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:49:51 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: HT not working by default since 2.4.22 |
| |
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:37:43PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > How about the more simple CONFIG_HYPERTHREAD or CONFIG_HT? > > > > If enabled and CONFIG_SMP is set, then we will attempt to discover HT > > via ACPI tables, regardless of CONFIG_ACPI value. > > Yes, except I think we should keep the name CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY since it > says exactly what it does. > > Hopefully I can make it looke clear in the menus -- > I think on the config menus for CONFIG_ACPI_HT_ONLY and CONFIG_ACPI > should be mutually exclusive.
Now that I've thought of it (aren't I humble), I rather like CONFIG_HT. It's simple and it's effects should be obvious to both developer and user:
CONFIG_HT, CONFIG_ACPI == ACPI !CONFIG_HT, CONFIG_ACPI == ACPI CONFIG_HT, !CONFIG_ACPI == HT-only ACPI !CONFIG_HT, !CONFIG_ACPI == no ACPI
Following the "autoconf model", what we really want to be testing with CONFIG_xxx is _features_, where possible. "hyperthreading: yes/no" is IMO more clear than "do I want ht-only ACPI or full ACPI", while at the same time being more fine-grained and future-proof.
> > Or... (I know multiple people will shoot me for saying this) we could > > resurrect acpitable.[ch], and build that when CONFIG_ACPI is disabled. > > The question about configs is independent of the acpitable.[ch] vs > table.c implementation. No, we should not return to maintaining two > copies of the acpi table code.
Point; agreed.
Jeff
- 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/
| |