Re: [patch] x86: make UV support optional

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> The problem arises that if the option becomes too obscure (and never
> enabled), then it won't get tested.  We (as many companies do) rely on
> distros to certify applications and security features using a standard
> kernel, and if an option (such as X86_UV) causes any problems whatsoever,
> they'll drop it and we no longer have that application certification.

If SGI UV is really important, I'm sure you can ask distros to keep it
enabled.


> Currently, Ingo's test setup sets MAXSMP quite a bit and he's found
> many problems with large NR_CPUS counts that we never would have found
> ourselves.  Please don't make that process any harder.

Yeah, and remove config_386 too. Just hardcode it to y.

No, sorry, I don't see why we should treat UV specially.

> In fact, 13k is peanuts.  Why don't you set something like "very minimal

13K is quite a lot, actually.
								Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/