On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:04:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:49 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The problem is that even oprofile on ia64 depends on perfmon. > > Hmm? You can definitely enable ia64 support for oprofile even without perfmon. Oh, I think my memory is playing tricks on me. This is my confusion, I think: oprofile-$(CONFIG_PERFMON) += perfmon.o so perfmon events are exposed through oprofile, but you can disable perfmon without disabling oprofile. > Because I'd be inclined to just remove CONFIG_PERFMON support, and see > if anybody even notices.. > > I'm not expecting a lot of people to do a lot of oprofile on ia64 > anyway. It's a bit late to start optimizing things now. > > Do people use perfmon still? Maybe. Maybe not. Perhaps we could just > mark it as broken in the Kconfig file for now, and see if somebody > says something? That gets my vote. Tony? Fenghua? diff --git a/arch/ia64/Kconfig b/arch/ia64/Kconfig index 792437d526c6..ff861420b8f5 100644 --- a/arch/ia64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/ia64/Kconfig @@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ config IA64_MCA_RECOVERY config PERFMON bool "Performance monitor support" + depends on BROKEN help Selects whether support for the IA-64 performance monitor hardware is included in the kernel. This makes some kernel data-structures a -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |