From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 27 May 2001 17:44:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 27 May 2001 17:43:51 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:18692 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 27 May 2001 17:43:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:42:57 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Abramo Bagnara , davem@caip.rutgers.edu, anton@linuxcare.com.au, Ralf Baechle , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Inconsistent "#ifdef __KERNEL__" on different architectures Message-ID: <20010527224257.B2702@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <3B115279.CE436CEA@alsa-project.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from bunk@fs.tum.de on Sun, May 27, 2001 at 11:07:38PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 11:07:38PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > I do also explicitely send this mail to the people that seem to be > responsible for the pieces of code I touch. > > I'm not sure whether the compete removal of the "#ifdef __KERNEL__"'s is > too rude but there are already other architectures that don't have it in > their architecture specific versions of these files. You cannot use the kernel atomic/interrupt functions from userspace on ARM. You cannot disable interrupts in userspace, and therefore the kernel atomic functions do not work as you expect them to. If it is to do with code to be included into the kernel, then why aren't you defining __KERNEL__ ? Therefore this change (as far as ARM goes) makes zero sense. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html