[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAqcGHkfozNafnNL0Z2b+msAEuPS7KmJ_oA4awLdrxhq_sT88Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:35:24 +0200
From: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] uselib: default depending if libc5 was used
On 1 December 2015 at 10:46, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:07:10 -0800 Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
>>> IA32_EMULATION depends on X86_64, so doesn't that reduce to:
>>> def_bool ALPHA || M68K || SPARC || X86_32 || IA32_EMULATION
Ok. looks cleaner to me.
>> It's a bit old fashioned to add an expression like this at the
>> definition site anyway. The cool new thing is to do
>>
>> def_bool ARCH_WANT_USELIB
>>
>> then go off and define ARCH_WANT_USELIB in the appropriate places in
>> the per-arch Kconfig files.
>
> That's useful for new to-be-implemented features, but this dependency list is
> (hopefully) cast in stone. No new architecture should need this.
> So I see no reason to clutter up more Kconfig files.
I agree. Splitting oneline patch to a patch that changes 5 files around kernel
tree only risks merge conflicts in this case.
Riku
--
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