Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Partial fix for compat build non-portability

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/1/07 17:50, "John Levon" <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 05:43:04PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 
>> I certainly dislike this hunk - I intentionally didn't do it this way
> 
> globs in makefiles are a horrible idea.

Well, I would agree when it comes to filtered globs at least. If the file
list has particular constraints I think a white list is clearer than a
pattern-based black list.

While we're on the subject of the compat code, I wonder whether some of it
might not better belong under arch/x86 (and even arch/x86/x86_64). The
concept of what 'compat' means in an architecture-neutral sense isn't well
defined, I believe. For example, the particular structs and headers that
need special treatment will surely be different between platforms that
choose to use CONFIG_COMPAT (if indeed any other than pae-on-x86-64 ever
materialises, which is itself quite a doubtful assumption). Something to
think about at least...

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel