From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755342AbYDWPAi (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:00:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751174AbYDWPA2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:00:28 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.188]:60478 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345AbYDWPA1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:00:27 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Will Newton" Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:59:24 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: "Kyle McMartin" , "Randy Dunlap" , "Linux Kernel list" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <20080422153849.GH19802@phobos.i.cabal.ca> <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87a5b0800804230736k340e7fe9mffbd72b5b8164015@mail.gmail.com> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804231659.24463.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+jfl3i1cv/0BBZCUcUVytz1jwzQpUAbRM9Geq N9p6d6IOzkWc1RQjMtKFMQWlbRAKjDypJBPhRQ9f+ztT2/S+ZT 19zplSW/7ubQ6G5O1BYBg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Will Newton wrote: > I implemented the approach you suggested - Kconfig symbol and > cond_syscall definition. I think I actually like the previous approach > better: > > 1. The arch Kconfig files are quite non-uniform compared to unistd.h > so the definitions wind up at different places in the file which is a > bit messy. > 2. Changes to Kconfig may cause churn in defconfigs perhaps? > 3. There is more churn in arch Kconfig than unistd.h so getting a > cross arch patch applied is likely to be more difficult. > 4. The patch is about 4 times as many lines. > > What do you think? I still feel that the original patch was more helpful and consistent with how we do it for the existing obsolete syscalls. Note that there is a much simpler solution if you just use an "#ifdef __NR_sys_sysfs" around the definition of the syscall, but that has another disadvantage in that it is harder to spot when new architectures get it wrong. Arnd <><