[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52B2F7E2.6020403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 21:42:58 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@...il.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Francois Bedard <Francois.Bedard@...opsys.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "ARC: Add guard macro to uapi/asm/unistd.h"
On 12/19/2013 09:11 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 06:04 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 12/19/2013 07:13 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
>>>> This reverts commit 97bc386fc12deeb41d5bff33548e3002b258d4e0.
>>>>
>>>> Generic syscall table generator relies on ARCH unistd.h as follows:
>>>>
>>>> void *sys_call_table[NR_syscalls] = {
>>>> [0 ... NR_syscalls-1] = sys_ni_syscall,
>>>> #include <asm/unistd.h>
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> And turns out that prior dependencies already include that header by
>>>> the time preprocessor hits the above. Meaning ARCH unistd.h needs to be
>>>> able to included twice.
>>>>
>> OK, thanks, it sounds reasonable to me.
>>
>> But why many other architectures contents these guard macros? (arm, sh,
>> blackfin, cris, frv, ia64, m32r, m68k, mips, s390, microblaze, mn10300,
>> parisc, powerpc, sparc, x86). Do they need improvement too?
>>
>> And for our case, what xtensa has done looks like a better way to me.
>
> Yeah, looks like that'll work - good find. Linus, please ignore the Revert, I'll
> follow up with a pull request.
>
Thanks. :-)
> -Vineet
>
--
Chen Gang
Open, share and attitude like air, water and life which God blessed
--
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