On 2020-05-06 4:21 p.m., Dave Hansen wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> index 1197b5596d5a..8630b9fa06f5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
>> @@ -1886,11 +1886,11 @@ config X86_UMIP
>> specific cases in protected and virtual-8086 modes. Emulated
>> results are dummy.
>>
>> -config X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>> - prompt "Intel Memory Protection Keys"
>> +config X86_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>> + prompt "Memory Protection Keys"
>> def_bool y
>> # Note: only available in 64-bit mode
>> - depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL && X86_64
>> + depends on X86_64 && (CPU_SUP_INTEL || CPU_SUP_AMD)
>> select ARCH_USES_HIGH_VMA_FLAGS
>> select ARCH_HAS_PKEYS
>> ---help---
>
> It's a bit of a bummer that we're going to prompt everybody doing
> oldconfig's for this new option. But, I don't know any way for Kconfig
> to suppress it if the name is changed. Also, I guess the def_bool=y
> means that menuconfig and olddefconfig will tend to do the right thing.
>
> Do we *really* need to change the Kconfig name? The text prompt, sure.
> End users see that and having Intel in there is massively confusing.
>
> If I have to put up with seeing 'amd64' all over my Debian package
> names, you can put up with a Kconfig name. :P
Lol, isn't that just Intel's penance for Itanium?
Logan
