>>> On 11.01.16 at 16:06, <car...@cardoe.com> wrote: > On 1/11/16 8:24 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 09.01.16 at 00:17, <car...@cardoe.com> wrote: >>> This converts the usage of NR_CPUS / MAX_PHYS_CPUS to Kconfig as >>> CONFIG_NR_CPUS. >> >> Considering the size of the patch, the doubling of the identifier's >> length, and the fact that even Linux continues to use NR_CPUS >> I wonder whether we wouldn't be better of simply having >> >> #define NR_CPUS CONFIG_NR_CPUS > > Is that a "please do this for a v2" or "what do the other maintainers > think?" statement?
More the former, unless the latter gets answered by "no, this is a bad idea". Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
