[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fuvyp7r9.fsf@vajain21.in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 22:53:06 +0530
From: Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Ian Munsie <imunsie@....ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michaele@....ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Ochs <mrochs@...ibm.com>, Manoj Kumar <kumarmn@...ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cxl: Add mechanism for delivering AFU driver specific events
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org> writes:
> These are here to enable the feature in other drivers. So the cxlflash
> (or whoever) can put their code in via the linux-scsi tree but that new
> piece is only enabled when CXL_AFU_DRIVER_OPS is present (ie. when
> merged upstream). But if it's not, their code can still compile.
>
> Hence their code compiles in linux-scsi and our code compiles in linux
> -ppc, but only once they're together do they actually enable the full
> feature. We don't have a nasty dependency of linux-scsi having to pull
> in linux-ppc or visa versa before the merge window. Everyone works
> independently and it all gets fixed in linus tree.
>
> Eventually, when everyone has the all the code in merged upstream, we
> can remove these config options. We should be able to remove
> CXL_KERNEL_API and CXL_EEH now actually!
>
> So no, we shouldn't wrap the actual code.
Mikey & Ian,
Agree on the point made. Thanks for detailed explaination.
~ Vaibhav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists