* Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:40:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Making a variable that 'looks' like a constant macro dynamic in a rare Kconfig > > > > scenario is asking for trouble. > > > > > > We expect boot-time page mode switching to be enabled in kernel of next > > > generation enterprise distros. It shoudn't be that rare. > > > > My point remains even with not-so-rare Kconfig dependency. > > I don't follow how introducing new variable that depends on Kconfig option > would help with the situation. A new, properly named variable or function (max_physmem_bits or max_physmem_bits()) that is not all uppercase would make it abundantly clear that it is not a constant but a runtime value. > We would end up with inverse situation: people would use MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS > where the new variable need to be used and we will in the same situation. It should result in sub-optimal resource allocations worst-case, right? We could also rename it to MAX_POSSIBLE_PHYSMEM_BITS to make it clear that the real number of bits can be lower. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
