On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 25.04.19 12:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> >
> >> On 25.04.19 12:42, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Yep, I'll make it disabled by default and not switchable and let arch select it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's not quite what I've suggested. Instead:
> >>
> >> #1: make the switch depend on the arch's that support it
> >
> > No. That's what select is for.
>
> Just for clarification: I've proposed the depend, because not only some
> archs will support it - and avoid masses of #ifdef's in the code.
> Therefore, it can only be enabled, when the archi supports it.
What has the way how you enable support to do with masses of #ifdefs?
Absolutely nothing.
> But if you insist in not having it configurable, letting the arch just
> select this feature, your approach makes sense.
Even if you make it configurable, then having:
depends on ARCH1 ... ARCHN
is just wrong. That's what dependency config symbols are for which can be
selected by the arch.
> >> #2: still leave it selectable to the user, so somebody who doesn't need
> >> it, can just disable it.
> >
> > Well, the number of knobs is exploding over time and the number of people
> > actually tweaking them is close to 0. So no, we don't want to have the
> > extra tunable for everything and the world.
>
> The great configurability often is one of the major arguments for using
> Linux in the first place.
>
> Would you propose killing all the CONFIG_EMBEDDED/CONFIG_EXPERT
> related knobs ?
No, but adding knobs for every tiny piece of code does not make the whole
thing any better in terms of usability and maintainability.
Thanks,
tglx
