[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090507111846.GI28398@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:18:46 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Yang Hongyang <yanghy@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macro
* Yang Hongyang <yanghy@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > We replaced all DMA_nBIT_MASK macros with DMA_BIT_MASK(n) but why do
> > we still keep DMA_nBIT_MASK macros in include/linux/dma-mapping.h?
> >
> > As long as these macros exist, people use them. The current git has
> > two users and linux-next have other users.
> >
> > Is it better to remove DMA_nBIT_MASK macros completely now?
Can you see a way to emit build warnings? If yes then that might be
a better solution instead of breaking in-the-pipeline code. We
missed the upstream window of removing the facilities altogether, we
could certainly do that in the next merge window though.
> CC:ingo
>
> I have no objections,actually I used to remove all these defines in my
> first commit of these patch series,but got suggestions that keep these
> defines one more circle.Maybe it's time to remove these defines now or
> to remove at the end of this circle?
>
> Reviewed-by:yanghy@...fujitsu.com
Thanks!
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists