From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: Re: [Xen-changelog] [linux-2.6.18-xen] Add "#ifdef ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM" to archtecture specific file_operations. Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:37 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20070711143610.7F6E.KAMA@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070711143610.7F6E.KAMA@jp.fujitsu.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jun Kamada Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Hollis Blanchard List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/7/07 06:44, "Jun Kamada" wrote: >> We define it in asm/mach-xen/asm/io.h. >> >> However, the patch *is* of questionable value. It guards the only non-static >> definition in the file with #ifdef ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM. Which begs the question >> why you would build the file at all if !ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM. I'll revert it. > > I'm sorry that I had posted the incomplete patch. I will attach a new > one modified. The patch resolves ploblems mentioned above? The case of building drivers/xen/char/mem.c, yet not defining ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM, does not seem useful. Who will pick up and use the mem_fops defined by drivers/xen/char/mem.c? At the very least this seems abusive of ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM, and you might be better off defining a different macro name? But I think you need to explain to us what it is you're actually trying to achieve. -- Keir