On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > It is not a good idea to change fundamental parameters of core memory > management. Having predefined ranges suggests that the values within > those ranges are sensible, but one has to *really* understand > implications of changing MAX_ORDER before actually amending it and > ranges don't help here. > > Drop ranges in definition of ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > index e60baf7859d1..bab6483e4317 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > @@ -1489,9 +1489,7 @@ config XEN > config ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER > int "Maximum zone order" if ARM64_4K_PAGES || ARM64_16K_PAGES > default "13" if ARM64_64K_PAGES > - range 11 13 if ARM64_16K_PAGES > default "11" if ARM64_16K_PAGES > - range 10 15 if ARM64_4K_PAGES > default "10" I don't mind rewriting the help text as in the subsequent patch but I'd keep the ranges as a safety measure. It's less wasted time explaining to people why some random max order doesn't work. Alternatively, we can drop the ranges but make this option configurable only if EXPERT. -- Catalin
