From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: Luca Barbieri <luca@luca-barbieri.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/atomic64_test: do not build on non-atomic64 systems
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:24:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101021162410.5c0d6720.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim6AFDw_1V9rtF4e_2tmgctbKHziQa-1e3=q7og@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:04:36 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:55, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:23:37 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:02:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:27:15 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > > If the arch doesn't provide atomic64 functionality (there are quite a
> >> > > few), then don't bother trying to build this test.
> >> >
> >> > I don't get it. __If the arch doesn't implement atomic64 then this file
> >> > will get zillions of build errors, won't it?
> >>
> >> ... which is why i added the ifdef protection
> >
> > So the changelog was poor. __Please write complete changelogs so I need
> > to have this sort of conversation less often?
>
> the changelog seems pretty clear to me. arch doesnt provide atomic64,
> so dont build code that uses atomic64.
That the patch fixes build errors is rather important information.
> > I know that. __But the standard way for an architecture to indicate to
> > the core that it impements a feature is for it to define CONFIG_HAVE_*.
> > Picking some related #define which architectures happen to implement
> > is atypical and unexpected.
> >
> > Will it cause problems? __Probably not, unless the arch goes and defines
> > ATOMIC64_INIT without actually implementing atomic64. __But it's
> > atypical and unexpected and, yes, lazy!
>
> you can say "lazy" all you like. i dont see the point in going that route.
Try
grep HAVE arch/x86/Kconfig
If all of those were instead to use some random #define which the
particular feature happened to define in some header file then we would
have a mess on our hands.
There's your point.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-21 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-16 17:27 [PATCH] lib/atomic64_test: do not build on non-atomic64 systems Mike Frysinger
2010-10-21 22:02 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-21 22:23 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-21 22:55 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-21 23:04 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-21 23:24 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-10-22 20:14 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-22 20:31 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-22 20:47 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-22 21:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-22 21:07 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-10-24 16:20 ` Roland Dreier
2010-10-25 1:52 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101021162410.5c0d6720.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca@luca-barbieri.com \
--cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox