From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (fed1rmmtao12.cox.net [68.230.241.27]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616E967A70 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:41:40 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:41:37 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Kumar Gala Message-ID: <20050317174137.GH8345@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20050316221152.GZ8345@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: linuxppc-dev list Subject: Re: building ppc_htab? List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:34:14AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2005, at 4:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > >On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:57:24AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > >> Is there any reason not to make the following change so we build > >> ppc_htab only on PPC STD MMU?? This would also require fixing up > >> fs/proc/proc_misc.c. > > > >I could have sworn, but maybe my memory sucks, that we no longer messed > >w/ fs/proc/proc_misc.c for any of the PPC-specific things (since in 2.6 > > you can do all of that proc magic in your 'driver').? So this patch > > would make a great deal of sense to do, and if it lacks what I'm > >talking > > about, we should do that part as well :) > > I'm not exactly clear on what you are talking about. There is this > snippet in fs/proc/proc_misc.c: Crap :( > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC32 > { > extern struct file_operations ppc_htab_operations; > entry = create_proc_entry("ppc_htab", S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR, > NULL); > if (entry) > entry->proc_fops = &ppc_htab_operations; > } > #endif > > Are you suggesting this should live elsewhere? I'm not that familiar > with proc code. Yes, it should live in ppc_htab.c. See the CONFIG_SYSCTL stuff already in ppc_htab.c for l2crvec. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/