Re: [PATCH] erofs: fix EROFS_FS_ZIP_LZMA_DEFAULT_MAX_STREAMS on some UP platforms
Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.ozlabs.lists.linux-erofs,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMuHMdViOgm=1Mp+XVoaQPL8LLVTnvmPhvzsFVEfdT=yVpFGaw@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi Gao, On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 at 11:47, Gao Xiang <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 11:21:33AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 at 11:05, Gao Xiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 10:43:34AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > In principle, that would be better, but may I ask if there is some > > > > > > > severe consequences out of one extra line of > > > > > > > CONFIG_EROFS_FS_ZIP_LZMA_DEFAULT_MAX_STREAMS=1? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since it has been fixed for many times, I hope if it could be improved > > > > > > > later if no severe impacts, sigh.. > > > > > > > > > > > > It causes more churn (defconfig updates), and makes the defconfig > > > > > > files larger than needed. > > > > > > > > > > Could you submit a formal patch directly (since you found it and > > > > > suggested a version)? > > > > > > > > > > so I could submit it along with the pull request if you're fine with it. > > > > > > > > Will do, I want to do a bit more testing first... > > > > > > Ok, anyway, I will try to submit a PR hours later. > > > if there is a patch, the worst case is that it's included in > > > the follow-up pull request. > > > > > > > In addition, usability can be improved by hiding the prompt on UP > > > > systems: > > > > > > > > - int "EROFS LZMA default maximum decompression streams" > > > > + int "EROFS LZMA default maximum decompression streams" if SMP > > > > > > > > > > I hope CONFIG_EROFS_FS_ZIP_LZMA_DEFAULT_MAX_STREAMS is a user-visible > > > configuration (and the Kconfig text helps too) no matter the platform > > > is UP or not (but it can be omitted in .config) even there is the only > > > one choice in menuconfig for example on UP platforms. > > > > Why do you prefer it to be a user-visible option on UP? > > In general, we try not to bother the user with questions about > > configuration options that do not matter for him, or that offer only > > a single valid answer. > > > > IMHO even "if SMP && EXPERT" would make sense... > > I think users should not be bothered with !SMP in the beginning. Because all systems are SMP? That is not true. > CONFIG_EROFS_FS_ZIP_LZMA_DEFAULT_MAX_STREAMS impacts the default > LZMA maximum memory usage, I hope it shows the same for both SMP or > !SMP (even it cannot be configured on !SMP, since it clearly shows > to users the number and indicates how the default LZMA stream > derives in general.) I disagree: Kconfig is not meant to document underlying mechanisms that are not relevant for the current configuration. Anyway, I have now submitted "[PATCH] erofs: Fix EROFS_FS_ZIP_LZMA_DEFAULT_MAX_STREAMS default logic" https://lore.kernel.org/c480ed6b8bf38822263e2c5b7cf32b28600f212d.1787219898.git.geert+renesas@glider.be/ Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds