From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:57612 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751718AbXKOSNX (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:13:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:14:51 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: HAVE or ARCH_HAS or ARCH_SUPPORTS and use of select Message-ID: <20071115181451.GA23914@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <20071115090215.GA20612@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20071115122151.GA10359@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071115122151.GA10359@Krystal> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: linux arch , Randy Dunlap List-ID: On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 07:21:51AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > FWIW, I've used "NEED_*" in my LTTng patchset to specify when an > architecture needs support from an architecture independent module. (it > could be an alternative to USE_*). The situations we need to cover are: 1) An architecture uses or support a generic implementation Examples: KPROBES, GENERIC_TIME 2) An architecture uses a specific functionality Examples: MMU 3) Architecture provide a specific functionality Examples: ARCH_HAS_ILOG2_U32, ARCH_HAS_ILOG2_U64 4) A driver is supported by a subset of the architectures Example: config EDAC depends on X86 || PPC I'm very tempted to go with the suggestion of Russell and say that the naming is the very generic: HAVE_ We know it from the auto-tools (albeit that could be a reason to avoid it) And we can hardly put wrong interpretations in the HAVE_ thing. Sam