From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261914AbTIZDvo (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:51:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261916AbTIZDvo (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:51:44 -0400 Received: from havoc.gtf.org ([63.247.75.124]:51177 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261914AbTIZDvm (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:51:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:49:51 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Len Brown Cc: marcelo@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, Marcelo Tosatti , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alan Cox , "Nakajima, Jun" Subject: Re: HT not working by default since 2.4.22 Message-ID: <20030926034951.GA12338@gtf.org> References: <3F738288.5060304@pobox.com> <1064547463.2981.833.camel@dhcppc4> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1064547463.2981.833.camel@dhcppc4> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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