On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:15:52AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 06/05/2012 06:18 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:32:47AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 06/04/2012 06:04 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:27:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >>>> On 05/11/2012 06:53 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote: > >>>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC > >>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_KEXEC) || defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) > >>>> > >>>> Let's not grow lists like this. Is there any harm in building it > >>>> unconditionally? > >>>> > >>>> -Scott > >>> > >>> We need this ifdef. We only set give_timebase/take_timebase > >>> when CONFIG_KEXEC or CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU is defined. > >> > >> If we really need this to be a compile-time decision, make a new symbol > >> for it, but I really think this should be decided at runtime. Just > >> because we have kexec or hotplug support enabled doesn't mean that's > >> actually what we're doing at the moment. > >> > >> -Scott > > > > If user does not enable kexec or hotplug, these codes are redundant. > > So use CONFIG_KEXEC and CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU to gard them. > > My point is that these lists tend to grow and be a maintenance pain. > For small things it's often better to not worry about saving a few > bytes. For larger things that need to be conditional, define a new > symbol rather than growing ORed lists like this. > > -Scott
I agree with you in principle. But there are only two config options in this patch, and it is unlikely to grow. -Chenhui _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev