* Kirill A. Shutemov <kir...@shutemov.name> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:40:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kir...@shutemov.name> wrote:
> >
> > > > Making a variable that 'looks' like a constant macro dynamic in a rare
> > > > Kconfig
> > > > scenario is asking for trouble.
> > >
> > > We expect boot-time page mode switching to be enabled in kernel of next
> > > generation enterprise distros. It shoudn't be that rare.
> >
> > My point remains even with not-so-rare Kconfig dependency.
>
> I don't follow how introducing new variable that depends on Kconfig option
> would help with the situation.
A new, properly named variable or function (max_physmem_bits or
max_physmem_bits()) that is not all uppercase would make it abundantly clear
that
it is not a constant but a runtime value.
> We would end up with inverse situation: people would use MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS
> where the new variable need to be used and we will in the same situation.
It should result in sub-optimal resource allocations worst-case, right?
We could also rename it to MAX_POSSIBLE_PHYSMEM_BITS to make it clear that the
real number of bits can be lower.
Thanks,
Ingo
