* Andi Kleen (ak@xxxxxxx) wrote: > On Friday 16 March 2007 11:55, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Given all the discussion, let's just require NO_HZ when > > > CONFIG_PARAVIRT. Anyone object? > > > > well ... why do we want this? I'd not mind making it default y if > > CONFIG_PARAVIRT is enabled, but why force it? > > I guess because they don't want to debug and maintain two different timer code > paths. It would be fine for me. !NOHZ will hopefully go away at some point > anyways and it clearly is important for virtualized environments. Yes, esp. considering the NO_IDLE_HZ problem. > Although I would prefer a select instead of a depends I think. Otherwise > the relationship will be quite unobvious. I thought about that, NO_HZ is still a user-visible feature rather than smth like library support. That's typically been the dividing line for depends vs. select. thanks, -chris _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
