From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:59:24 +0200 Message-ID: <200804231659.24463.arnd@arndb.de> References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <20080422153849.GH19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Will Newton Cc: Kyle McMartin , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Will Newton wrote: > I implemented the approach you suggested - Kconfig symbol and > cond_syscall definition. I think I actually like the previous approach > better: > > 1. The arch Kconfig files are quite non-uniform compared to unistd.h > so the definitions wind up at different places in the file which is a > bit messy. > 2. Changes to Kconfig may cause churn in defconfigs perhaps? > 3. There is more churn in arch Kconfig than unistd.h so getting a > cross arch patch applied is likely to be more difficult. > 4. The patch is about 4 times as many lines. > > What do you think? I still feel that the original patch was more helpful and consistent with how we do it for the existing obsolete syscalls. Note that there is a much simpler solution if you just use an "#ifdef __NR_sys_sysfs" around the definition of the syscall, but that has another disadvantage in that it is harder to spot when new architectures get it wrong. Arnd <>< From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:60478 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345AbYDWPA1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:00:27 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:59:24 +0200 References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <20080422153849.GH19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <200804231659.24463.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Will Newton Cc: Kyle McMartin , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20080423145924.SqNTWaEt9RwbswHHh5gu8TnS2r0ifMNkYx1l0ZXuHqw@z> On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Will Newton wrote: > I implemented the approach you suggested - Kconfig symbol and > cond_syscall definition. I think I actually like the previous approach > better: > > 1. The arch Kconfig files are quite non-uniform compared to unistd.h > so the definitions wind up at different places in the file which is a > bit messy. > 2. Changes to Kconfig may cause churn in defconfigs perhaps? > 3. There is more churn in arch Kconfig than unistd.h so getting a > cross arch patch applied is likely to be more difficult. > 4. The patch is about 4 times as many lines. > > What do you think? I still feel that the original patch was more helpful and consistent with how we do it for the existing obsolete syscalls. Note that there is a much simpler solution if you just use an "#ifdef __NR_sys_sysfs" around the definition of the syscall, but that has another disadvantage in that it is harder to spot when new architectures get it wrong. Arnd <><