Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 8 Jul 2011 19:48:44 +0300
From:      Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Sergey Kandaurov <pluknet@freebsd.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [PATCH] Add MAXCPU as a kernel config option and quality discussion on this
Message-ID:  <20110708164844.GZ48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndDZu0cBrVbH3W%2B8Tj86T5h%2BwwWqUVnjJO1rtXopKodNOA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAJ-FndDZu0cBrVbH3W%2B8Tj86T5h%2BwwWqUVnjJO1rtXopKodNOA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--I3A9QrhXlID9zuAO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 05:37:17PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
> I've made this patch for making MAXCPU a kernel config option:
> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/maxcpu_kernel_opt.diff
>=20
> Besides if this is a good idea or not (which I think it is) I want to
> discuss this implementation and similar related problems.
> In this case I've been forced to include opt_maxcpu.h in all the MD
> param.h implementations. A similar case, KSTACK_PAGES, includes the
> opt_kstack_pages.h only in the consumers. While this is possible for
> KSTACK_PAGES, because there are very little consumers, it would be
> impratical for MAXCPU. Besides, this is a very dangerous practice
> IMHO: if a consumer fails to add opt_kstack_pages it may end up with a
> faulty value, introducing a breakage that would go unnoticed.
>=20
> In my case, I think that including opt_maxcpu is a viable panacea, but
> in general, after discussing with peter@, probabilly the better idea
> would be having a centralized script that does pre-processing before
> to start compiling and set with the right values all those constants
> (something like genassym.c, but of course with a different purpose).
>=20
> What are your ideas on that? Do you think that including opt_maxcpu.h
> would be acceptable for the time being?

I vote for putting MAXCPU in opt_global.h.
Why did you choosed separate opt header ?

--I3A9QrhXlID9zuAO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk4XNOsACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hLjgCfZgu0akl8CeDFWdzbp36q1sGt
hqMAn0wq+6tChd4GJFbwBn38TVRSvaJq
=hqJW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--I3A9QrhXlID9zuAO--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110708164844.GZ48734>