From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: m.nazarewicz@samsung.com (=?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBOYXphcmV3aWN6?=) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:20:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH/RFCv4 3/6] mm: cma: Added SysFS support In-Reply-To: <20100825203707.GB5318@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <0b02e05fc21e70a3af39e65e628d117cd89d70a1.1282286941.git.m.nazarewicz@samsung.com> <343f4b0edf9b5eef598831700cb459cd428d3f2e.1282286941.git.m.nazarewicz@samsung.com> <9883433f103cc84e55db150806d2270200c74c6b.1282286941.git.m.nazarewicz@samsung.com> <20100825203707.GB5318@phenom.dumpdata.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 22:37:08 +0200, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > Whats the rationale for having those #ifdef CONFIG_CMA_SYSFS sprinkled > in the C code? Is SysFS not used on StrongARM? Why not implicitly include > the SysFS support? The SysFS CMA interface is meant for development only and because of that I decided to separate it form the core in a separate patch and enable it only when explicitly requested. -- Best regards, _ _ | Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o | Computer Science, Micha? "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o) +----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--