From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k7SHjb5b022701 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:45:37 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id k7SHjbMq281848 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:45:37 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k7SHjbBj023080 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:45:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] ia64 generic PAGE_SIZE From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: References: <20060828154413.E05721BD@localhost.localdomain> <20060828154414.38AEDAA2@localhost.localdomain> <1156785773.5913.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:45:34 -0700 Message-Id: <1156787134.5913.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 10:32 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Lets keep the arch specific stuff out of mm/Kconfig. I know that the normal way of doing things has been with ARCH_SUPPORTS_FOO defined in arch/Kconfig. But, I really like the alternate approach because it is so easy to figure out which architectures support which page sizes with a single glance at the Kconfig file. I can really see putting another layer of indirection in there if things were too complicated to understand at a glance, but I think they've remained pretty simple. Is there any specific reason that you dislike the arch-specific stuff in mm/Kconfig? I don't mind creating those other Kconfig options, but I'm not really sure I see a concrete reason for it, yet. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org