From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Nishanth Aravamudan) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:52:55 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 0/5 v3] Fix NVMe driver support on Power with 32-bit DMA In-Reply-To: <20151027.175322.247163553940004154.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20151023205420.GA10197@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20151026.182746.1323901353520152838.davem@davemloft.net> <20151027222010.GD7716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20151027.175322.247163553940004154.davem@davemloft.net> Message-ID: <20151028015255.GG7716@linux.vnet.ibm.com> On 27.10.2015 [17:53:22 -0700], David Miller wrote: > From: Nishanth Aravamudan > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:20:10 -0700 > > > Well, looks like I should spin up a v4 anyways for the powerpc changes. > > So, to make sure I understand your point, should I make the generic > > dma_get_page_shift a compile-error kind of thing? It will only fail on > > architectures that actually build the NVME driver (as the only caller). > > But I'm not sure how exactly to achieve that, if you could give a bit > > more detail I'd appreciate it! > > Yes, I am basically suggesting to simply not provide a default at all. For my own edification -- what is the way that gets resolved? I guess I mean it seems like linux-next would cease to compile because of my new series. Would my patches just get kicked out of -next for introducing that (or even via the 0-day notifications), or should I put something into the commit message indicating it is an API introduction? Sorry for the tentativeness, I have not introduce a cross-architecture API like this before. Thanks, Nish >