lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS
Date
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 <><


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-23 17:03    [W:0.085 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site