[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081129192610.716a2d57.h.mitake@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:26:10 +0900
From: Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Doug Thompson <norsk5@...oo.com>, dougthompson@...ssion.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] edac x38: new MC driver module
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:38:58 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Hitoshi Mitake <h.mitake@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > +#define readq readq
> > +#define writeq writeq
>
> hm, that's done to override the generic definition? Looks weird and i
> think that's rather fragile - it's easy to somehow get the generic header
> without this override.
No, the purpose of this #define is to let user of this function to know there's readq/writeq.
Like this,
#ifdef readq
/* do something */
#endif
But this is old way. ARCH_HAS_READQ and ARCH_HAS_WRITEQ are new ways
to determine existence of readq/writeq. Drivers which use readq/writeq should
depend on these values in their Kconfig file.
This definitions may be redundant. But there are some architectures
which already have this definition for same purpose. So I added.
Should I remove these?
--
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