From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
"Michel Lespinasse" <walken@google.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Paul Mundt" <lethal@linux-sh.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kconfig.debug: Add FRAME_POINTER anti-dependency for ARC
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:18:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <522450ED.1020704@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5220B83A.6070709@intel.com>
On 08/30/2013 08:50 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/30/2013 12:48 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> If we had ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE (def_bool n), we could potentially remove
>> ARCH_FRAME_POINTER too:
>> The issue is some (sparc, c6x...) which are neither in #1 or #2, and not present
>> in anti-dependency list either. e.g. With sparc64_defconfig FP is not present, but
>> if I enable LATENCY_TOP, FP is enabled. For such cases, what do we make default ?
>
> You can list multiple defaults if you want, or have them depend on other
> config variables:
>
> config FOO
> default BAR
>
> or
>
> config FOO
> default y if BAR
> default n if BAZ
>
> ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE doesn't make much sense if
> FRAME_POINTER=n, right? You can have it just plain depend on
> FRAME_POINTER, I think.
I think I was not very clear with the problem description.
With a defbool 'n', FP will be by default enabled and arches not interested in FP
will select ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE. e.g. SPARC, so far so good.
That however means that LATENCYTOP enabled in sparc64_defconfig will now build
with !FP, whereas as of today it enables FP (and SPARC code must be OK with FP
enabling in this config). So, we are changing semantics here, which might still be
OK, but I'll only trust arch maintainers' NOD. So the change is not just
mechanical from that perspective.
My point is, before I cook the patch-set we must be in agreement to this
semantical change.
-Vineet
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@tilera.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Kconfig.debug: Add FRAME_POINTER anti-dependency for ARC
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:18:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <522450ED.1020704@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5220B83A.6070709@intel.com>
On 08/30/2013 08:50 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/30/2013 12:48 AM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>> If we had ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE (def_bool n), we could potentially remove
>> ARCH_FRAME_POINTER too:
>> The issue is some (sparc, c6x...) which are neither in #1 or #2, and not present
>> in anti-dependency list either. e.g. With sparc64_defconfig FP is not present, but
>> if I enable LATENCY_TOP, FP is enabled. For such cases, what do we make default ?
>
> You can list multiple defaults if you want, or have them depend on other
> config variables:
>
> config FOO
> default BAR
>
> or
>
> config FOO
> default y if BAR
> default n if BAZ
>
> ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE doesn't make much sense if
> FRAME_POINTER=n, right? You can have it just plain depend on
> FRAME_POINTER, I think.
I think I was not very clear with the problem description.
With a defbool 'n', FP will be by default enabled and arches not interested in FP
will select ARCH_FRAME_POINTER_UNAVAILABLE. e.g. SPARC, so far so good.
That however means that LATENCYTOP enabled in sparc64_defconfig will now build
with !FP, whereas as of today it enables FP (and SPARC code must be OK with FP
enabling in this config). So, we are changing semantics here, which might still be
OK, but I'll only trust arch maintainers' NOD. So the change is not just
mechanical from that perspective.
My point is, before I cook the patch-set we must be in agreement to this
semantical change.
-Vineet
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-02 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-27 8:31 [PATCH] Kconfig.debug: Add FRAME_POINTER anti-dependency for ARC Vineet Gupta
2013-08-29 11:04 ` Vineet Gupta
2013-08-29 15:18 ` Dave Hansen
2013-08-30 4:25 ` Vineet Gupta
2013-08-30 7:48 ` Vineet Gupta
2013-08-30 15:20 ` Dave Hansen
2013-09-02 8:48 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2013-09-02 8:48 ` Vineet Gupta
2013-09-02 9:02 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2013-09-02 11:41 ` Vineet Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=522450ED.1020704@synopsys.com \
--to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cmetcalf@tilera.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.mckenney@linaro.org \
--cc=walken@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.