On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 01:53:32PM +0200, Lukasz Odzioba wrote: > > A new limit selected arbitrarily as power of two greater than > > required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. > Why 128 instead of a more reasonable 64 ? What is the required minimum > for Xeon Phi ? Not meaning to be snarky, but this was answered in the first sentence. 64 is less than the required minimum for Xeon Phi processor. So it must be 65 or greater... I wouldn't expect Intel to give you any more detail than that. And it might be that 64 is actually enough for now but would soon (months or less than a year) be overrun by a newer processor. So rather than submit multiple minor patches, just submit one now that should be "enough" If you think this is a waste of RAM, we could make it a kernel configuration option and let it be configured by the distro or user. But if most distros select 128 to be able to support Xeon Phi, then there might not be a reason for the additional complexity. Phil P. _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
