Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow NR_CPUS=1024

From: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@sgi.com>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, <prarit@redhat.com>,
	<x86@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow NR_CPUS=1024
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:31:01 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <527890A5.8050507@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131105062537.GA31880@gmail.com>

On 2013/11/5 14:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/04/2013 12:11 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 8192 maybe?
>>>
>>> Yeah, that makes more sense I guess.
>>>
>>
>> However, I still have serious issues with crap like this because 
>> randconfig is basically broken.  If nothing else we need to get that 
>> feedback to the kconfig maintainers.
> 
> The problem with that is that there are no kconfig maintainers:
> 

Yes, there is.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/30/124

Though I don't know if the new maintainer will help in this issue.

>   KCONFIG
>   ...
>   S:      Odd Fixes
> 
> The kconfig code is still a hard to maintain, scarcely documented mess. It 
> took us almost a decade to rescue the NTP code from a similar obfuscation 
> trap and make it maintainable. It had the same author as the original 
> Kconfig code - and the Kconfig code is 10 times larger than the NTP code.
> 
> Thanks,
> 