On 2020-05-06 15:21:29 [-0700], 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. You could add a new option (X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS) which is def_bool X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS and avoiding the prompt line. Soo it is selected based on the old option and the user isn't bother. A few cycles later you could remove intel option and add prompt to other. But still little work for… > 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 :) Right. On AMD you also use the crc32c-intel (if possible) and I haven't seen people complain about this one. > I'm really just wondering what the point of the churn is. Sebastian
