[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080422153849.GH19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:38:49 -0400
From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>
To: Will Newton <will.newton@...il.com>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:34:03PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:16:17PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> > > It can be done with Kconfig. Whether it should be or not depends on
> > > your point of view, hence RFC. Currently __ARCH_WANT macros is the way
> > > syscalls are enabled and disabled across architectures. If there's
> > > consensus that it should be done via Kconfig that could certainly be
> > > implmented, but that's a different patch.
> > >
> >
> > It's currently done in unistd.h for hysterical raisins. All new
> > conditional syscalls have been done in Kconfig.
>
> Do you have a syscall in mind that does this in the correct way?
>
epoll is the most immediate example at hand, since it touches
fs/compat.c similarly to how you would be touching fs/filesystem.c, and
touches kernel/sys_ni.c and init/Kconfig in much the same way.
> BTW, don't blame the blackfin guys for this, I'm thinking about future
> architectures that may be added rather than any existing ones. ;-)
>
Meh. :)
cheers, Kyle
--
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