[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091028.012816.115332412.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: andi@...stfloor.org
Cc: airlied@...ux.ie, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:19:09 +0100
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:11:41AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:59:08 +0100
>>
>> >> }
>> >> - chunk_array_ptr = (uint64_t *)(unsigned long)(cs->chunks);
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> >> + if (is_compat_task())
>> >
>> > Are the COMPAT ifdefs really needed? The compiler should optimize that
>> > away anyways on non compat aware architectures, shouldn't it?
>>
>> There are no non-compat is_compat_task() definitions, nor are there
>> non-compat build definitions of compat_uptr_t and the assosciated
>> interfaces.
>
> That seems wrong then, better fix that too? It would be certainly better
> than adding a lot of ifdefs.
That's usually done by seperating the compat code into a seperate
file and "obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT) += foo.o" in the Makefile.
That's not really possible here.
Sure, longer term we can provide those kinds of definitions to avoid
the ifdefs, but that's not what my change is about. :-)
--
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