From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Will Newton" Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:18:34 +0100 Message-ID: <87a5b0800804240218l3e907acah438dded122cdec33@mail.gmail.com> References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <87a5b0800804220816y72a7f4f9gec2111df08a1a57f@mail.gmail.com> <20080422152426.GG19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804220834q4d6daec1x4146d211115ab5c@mail.gmail.com> <20080422153849.GH19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015@mail.gmail.com> <20080423154038.GL19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804230850y4d577ff2taf1689f4af26b274@mail.gmail.com> <8bd0f97a0804230905x19fd96aevc8f225d241e59369@mail.gmail.com> <8bd0f97a0804231059w76592878s3f6bf4a488b3ddea@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0804231059w76592878s3f6bf4a488b3ddea-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Mike Frysinger Cc: Kyle McMartin , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Will Newton wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:23PM +0100, Will Newton wrote: > > > > > +config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS > > > > > + bool > > > > > + default y > > > > > + > > > > > source "init/Kconfig" > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I meant something more like > > > > > > > > > > > > config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS > > > > def_bool !BLACKFIN > > > > help > > > > Obsolete sys_sysfs syscall > > > > > > > > in init/Kconfig > > > > > > > > But, it's your patch, you can do it however you like. :) > > > > > > That's definitely shorter - but it feels a bit more like #ifdef > > > CONFIG_BLACKFIN which is explicitly what I don't want to do, because > > > I'm not actually interested in blackfin. ;-) > > > > i'd have to agree that updating asm/unistd.h fits better with existing > > paradigm. if we want to talk about converting *all cases* to Kconfig, > > we can do it in a separate thread. splitting the design between two > > different files is simply confusing to everyone involved as they spend > > their time going "well which way am *i* supposed to do it". > > thinking about this some more ... we actually have three choices here, > not just two. checksyscalls.sh introduced a new form in asm/unistd.h: > #define __IGNORE_sysfs > perhaps we should be unifying the __ARCH_WANT_XXX and the __IGNORE_XXX I'm not sure this would be possible. IGNORE is saying "please don't warn me about the fact that I don't define define this syscall". ARCH_WANT is saying "give me the generic implementation of this syscall". You should never define IGNORE and ARCH_WANT for the same syscall, but you may want to have neither - you have defined the syscall but you don't want the generic version. > -mike > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:21536 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751174AbYDXJSg (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:18:36 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so4870983pyb.10 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <87a5b0800804240218l3e907acah438dded122cdec33@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:18:34 +0100 From: "Will Newton" Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0804231059w76592878s3f6bf4a488b3ddea@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <87a5b0800804220816y72a7f4f9gec2111df08a1a57f@mail.gmail.com> <20080422152426.GG19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804220834q4d6daec1x4146d211115ab5c@mail.gmail.com> <20080422153849.GH19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015@mail.gmail.com> <20080423154038.GL19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804230850y4d577ff2taf1689f4af26b274@mail.gmail.com> <8bd0f97a0804230905x19fd96aevc8f225d241e59369@mail.gmail.com> <8bd0f97a0804231059w76592878s3f6bf4a488b3ddea@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mike Frysinger Cc: Kyle McMartin , Randy Dunlap , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20080424091834.tAoR2Xx4npr0oA-gIjSBe0cmtRXjxBIFimUlMrB9ugM@z> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Will Newton wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:23PM +0100, Will Newton wrote: > > > > > +config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS > > > > > + bool > > > > > + default y > > > > > + > > > > > source "init/Kconfig" > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I meant something more like > > > > > > > > > > > > config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS > > > > def_bool !BLACKFIN > > > > help > > > > Obsolete sys_sysfs syscall > > > > > > > > in init/Kconfig > > > > > > > > But, it's your patch, you can do it however you like. :) > > > > > > That's definitely shorter - but it feels a bit more like #ifdef > > > CONFIG_BLACKFIN which is explicitly what I don't want to do, because > > > I'm not actually interested in blackfin. ;-) > > > > i'd have to agree that updating asm/unistd.h fits better with existing > > paradigm. if we want to talk about converting *all cases* to Kconfig, > > we can do it in a separate thread. splitting the design between two > > different files is simply confusing to everyone involved as they spend > > their time going "well which way am *i* supposed to do it". > > thinking about this some more ... we actually have three choices here, > not just two. checksyscalls.sh introduced a new form in asm/unistd.h: > #define __IGNORE_sysfs > perhaps we should be unifying the __ARCH_WANT_XXX and the __IGNORE_XXX I'm not sure this would be possible. IGNORE is saying "please don't warn me about the fact that I don't define define this syscall". ARCH_WANT is saying "give me the generic implementation of this syscall". You should never define IGNORE and ARCH_WANT for the same syscall, but you may want to have neither - you have defined the syscall but you don't want the generic version. > -mike >