From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: Luca Barbieri <luca@luca-barbieri.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/atomic64_test: do not build on non-atomic64 systems
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:24:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101021162410.5c0d6720.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim6AFDw_1V9rtF4e_2tmgctbKHziQa-1e3=q7og@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:04:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:55, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:23:37 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:02:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:27:15 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > > If the arch doesn't provide atomic64 functionality (there are quite a
> >> > > few), then don't bother trying to build this test.
> >> >
> >> > I don't get it. __If the arch doesn't implement atomic64 then this file
> >> > will get zillions of build errors, won't it?
> >>
> >> ... which is why i added the ifdef protection
> >
> > So the changelog was poor. __Please write complete changelogs so I need
> > to have this sort of conversation less often?
>
> the changelog seems pretty clear to me. arch doesnt provide atomic64,
> so dont build code that uses atomic64.
That the patch fixes build errors is rather important information.
> > I know that. __But the standard way for an architecture to indicate to
> > the core that it impements a feature is for it to define CONFIG_HAVE_*.
> > Picking some related #define which architectures happen to implement
> > is atypical and unexpected.
> >
> > Will it cause problems? __Probably not, unless the arch goes and defines
> > ATOMIC64_INIT without actually implementing atomic64. __But it's
> > atypical and unexpected and, yes, lazy!
>
> you can say "lazy" all you like. i dont see the point in going that route.
Try
grep HAVE arch/x86/Kconfig
If all of those were instead to use some random #define which the
particular feature happened to define in some header file then we would
have a mess on our hands.
There's your point.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-21 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-16 17:27 [PATCH] lib/atomic64_test: do not build on non-atomic64 systems Mike Frysinger
2010-10-21 22:02 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-21 22:23 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-21 22:55 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-21 23:04 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-21 23:24 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-10-22 20:14 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-22 20:31 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-22 20:47 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-22 21:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-22 21:07 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-24 16:20 ` Roland Dreier
2010-10-25 1:52 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101021162410.5c0d6720.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca@luca-barbieri.com \
--cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.