linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:59:20 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 15:47, David Howells wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > You could write it as
> > 
> > bounce-$(CONFIG_MMU) += bounce.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BLOCK)  += $(bounce-y)
> 
> I could, yes, but why?  What does it buy?  I think this:
> 
>         ifeq ($(CONFIG_MMU)$(CONFIG_BLOCK),yy)
>         obj-y += bounce.o
>         endif
> 
> is clearer.

I remember having seen the first one in the kernel before
(e.g. in arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile), but not the other one.

I agree that it doesn't make much difference at all, but it
would be nice to be consistant.

	Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/