[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804231659.24463.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:59:24 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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 Wednesday 23 April 2008, Will Newton wrote:
> I implemented the approach you suggested - Kconfig symbol and
> cond_syscall definition. I think I actually like the previous approach
> better:
>
> 1. The arch Kconfig files are quite non-uniform compared to unistd.h
> so the definitions wind up at different places in the file which is a
> bit messy.
> 2. Changes to Kconfig may cause churn in defconfigs perhaps?
> 3. There is more churn in arch Kconfig than unistd.h so getting a
> cross arch patch applied is likely to be more difficult.
> 4. The patch is about 4 times as many lines.
>
> What do you think?
I still feel that the original patch was more helpful and consistent
with how we do it for the existing obsolete syscalls.
Note that there is a much simpler solution if you just use an
"#ifdef __NR_sys_sysfs" around the definition of the syscall, but
that has another disadvantage in that it is harder to spot when
new architectures get it wrong.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists