On 2020-05-06 4:21 p.m., Dave Hansen wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> index 1197b5596d5a..8630b9fa06f5 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> @@ -1886,11 +1886,11 @@ config X86_UMIP >> specific cases in protected and virtual-8086 modes. Emulated >> results are dummy. >> >> -config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS >> - prompt "Intel Memory Protection Keys" >> +config X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS >> + prompt "Memory Protection Keys" >> def_bool y >> # Note: only available in 64-bit mode >> - depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64 >> + depends on X86_64 && (CPU_SUP_INTEL || CPU_SUP_AMD) >> select ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS >> select ARCH_HAS_PKEYS >> ---help--- > > It's a bit of a bummer that we're going to prompt everybody doing > oldconfig's for this new option. But, I don't know any way for Kconfig > to suppress it if the name is changed. Also, I guess the def_bool=y > means that menuconfig and olddefconfig will tend to do the right thing. > > Do we *really* need to change the Kconfig name? The text prompt, sure. > End users see that and having Intel in there is massively confusing. > > If I have to put up with seeing 'amd64' all over my Debian package > names, you can put up with a Kconfig name. :P Lol, isn't that just Intel's penance for Itanium? Logan
