On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15:33AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > 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. I like the EXPERT alternative more. I'll add it in v2. > -- > Catalin -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
