[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A0EAC8.9020203@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:03:04 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ell.com>,
Arthur Jones <arthur.jones@...gic.com>,
Vasily Tarasov <vtaras@...nvz.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@....cz>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: build fix for x86_64...
Luck, Tony wrote:
>
> Which is better. But if we unconditionally set this CONFIG variable, then the
> code in fs/quota.c will have to read:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_COMPAT) && defined(CONFIG_COMPAT_FOR_U64_ALIGNMENT)
>
> We can keep it simpler if the Kconfig file does the conditional for us:
>
> config COMPAT_FOR_U64_ALIGNMENT
> def_bool y
> depends on COMPAT
>
No, that would be bad. If compat_u64 is used to carry 32-bit ABIs
forward into 64-bit space without needing compatibility hacks, then this
would actually introduce ABI incompatibilities depending on CONFIG_COMPAT!
-hpa
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists