[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185487125.20910.30.camel@dchapman.boston.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:58:45 -0400
From: Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
vtaras@...nvz.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ia64: fix build failure on fs/quota.c
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 14:24 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> This issue wandered off onto a long thread "build fix for x86_64" which
> died out without a final patch. Here's the summary:
>
Ahh, thanks, I had not seen that thread.
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) || (defined(CONFIG_IA64) && defined(CONFIG_COMPAT))
>
> It was pointed out that x86-64 also has a CONFIG_COMPAT, so the "right"
> #ifdef mess would be:
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_COMPAT) && (defined(CONFIG_IA64) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64))
>
> But this was thought too ugly. Andi Kleen proposed making a new CONFIG
> variable for this situation: CONFIG_COMPAT_FOR_U64_ALIGMNENT which could
> be set in ia64 and x86-64 Kconfig files with:
>
> config COMPAT_FOR_U64_ALIGMNENT
> def_bool COMPAT
>
> So the C-code would simply have:
>
> #if defined(COMPAT_COMPAT_FOR_U64_ALIGMNENT)
>
> (IIRC the syntax correctly). Peter Anvin had some worries about future
> issues ... but I think he agreed that this was Ok.
>
> Anyone still have any objections to this?
No objections here. I just tried this patch and it does fix my ia64
build issue. I agree it is a bit cleaner than the long #ifdef.
thanks,
- Doug
-
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