Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:29:09 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] RFC: let x86_64 no longer define X86 |
| |
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 01:40:55PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The most important improvement would be to prevent such bugs and to have > > the X86_64 dependency explicitely stated. > > This would just end up with me having to hunt through all the drivers > all the time and enabling drivers that need to be enabled on x86-64 too. > > It's much easier to disable the few drivers that are broken with !X86_64. >...
The issue you describe only occurs when a new dependency on X86 is added. It is not a problem for the common case that a driver is portable and therefore available on all architectures.
If the driver also works on X86_64, adding a " || X86_64" is trivial. In the worst case, a new driver is not available on X86_64 until this is added to the dependencies.
But the current setup might cause real bugs.
If one new user of CONFIG_LBD wouldn't additionally (and not strictly required) check BITS_PER_LONG, it might currently have unwanted effects on X86_64. Explicite annotations with X86_64 if it works on this architecture would prevent such bugs.
> -Andi
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |