[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0804230905x19fd96aevc8f225d241e59369@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:05:02 -0400
From: "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com>
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 Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Will Newton <will.newton@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...artin.ca> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:23PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
> > > +config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS
> > > + bool
> > > + default y
> > > +
> > > source "init/Kconfig"
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I meant something more like
> >
> >
> > config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS
> > def_bool !BLACKFIN
> > help
> > Obsolete sys_sysfs syscall
> >
> > in init/Kconfig
> >
> > But, it's your patch, you can do it however you like. :)
>
> That's definitely shorter - but it feels a bit more like #ifdef
> CONFIG_BLACKFIN which is explicitly what I don't want to do, because
> I'm not actually interested in blackfin. ;-)
i'd have to agree that updating asm/unistd.h fits better with existing
paradigm. if we want to talk about converting *all cases* to Kconfig,
we can do it in a separate thread. splitting the design between two
different files is simply confusing to everyone involved as they spend
their time going "well which way am *i* supposed to do it".
-mike
--
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