Re: 2.6.17-rc1-mm1: KEXEC became SMP-only

[ebiederm at xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 01:45:04AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>...
>> Changes since 2.6.16-mm2:
>>...
>> +x86-clean-up-subarch-definitions.patch
>>...
>>  x86 updates.
>>...
>
> The following looks bogus:

It is. 

>
>  config KEXEC
>         bool "kexec system call (EXPERIMENTAL)"
> -       depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> +       depends on EXPERIMENTAL && (!X86_VOYAGER && SMP)
>
> The dependencies do now say that KEXEC is only offered for machines that 
> are _both_ non-Voyager and SMP.
>
> Is the problem you wanted to express that a non-SMP Voyager config 
> didn't compile?
>
> AFAIR I recently sent a patch disallowing non-SMP Voyager configurations 
> that wasn't yet applied.

I think this cleanup patch is even going in the wrong direction.  The
subarch code right now is a real pain because it is never clear when
you are calling a function with multiple definitions.  Which makes it
really easy to break.

If we are going to refactor this can we please move in the direction
of a machine vector like alpha, ppc, and arm.  I don't see the current
this cleanup making it any easier to tell there is code in a subarch.

Eric