[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1438956522.17630.1.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:08:42 -0600
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
x86@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: clean up conditional pmem includes
On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 23:39 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:43:16AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Prior to this change x86_64 used the pmem defines in
> > arch/x86/include/asm/cacheflush.h, and UM used the default ones at the
> > top of include/linux/pmem.h. The inclusion or exclusion in pmem.h was
> > controlled by CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API, but the ones in cacheflush.h
> > were controlled by ARCH_HAS_NOCACHE_UACCESS.
> >
> > Instead, control them both with CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API so that it's
> > clear that they are related and we don't run into the possibility where
> > they are both included or excluded. Also remove a bunch of stale
> > function prototypes meant for UM in cacheflush.h - these just conflicted
> > with the inline defaults in pmem.h, and gave compile errors:
>
> This looks reasonable, but can you use the opportunity to also move
> the pmem arch inlines from asm/cacheflush.h to a new asm/pmem.h?
Sure, it that seems like a good idea. Thanks.
--
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