lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:13:39 +0100 Will Newton wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch introduces a __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS #define for
> > architectures that support the sysfs(2) system call. At the moment
> > that's everybody but blackfin, but future architectures may want to
> > save the (admittedly small) code size that it adds to the kernel as
> > well.
> >
> > (patch attached as well as inline because gmail seems to mangle my whitespace)
> >
> > ---
> > >From d0746366e8ccb5fbaa6c9945540cecbe0c421222 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Will Newton <will.newton@imgtec.com>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:57:03 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Will Newton <will.newton@imgtec.com>
> >
> > All arches that want the sysfs(2) system call should define this symbol.
> > Arches such as blackfin that do not implement the system call don't compile
> > the code and save some small amount of space.
>
> Is there any reason that this couldn't (and shouldn't) be done
> in the Kconfig space and done as documented in
> Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt ?

It can be done with Kconfig. Whether it should be or not depends on
your point of view, hence RFC. Currently __ARCH_WANT macros is the way
syscalls are enabled and disabled across architectures. If there's
consensus that it should be done via Kconfig that could certainly be
implmented, but that's a different patch.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-22 17:19    [W:0.111 / U:0.520 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site