[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-changelog] [linux-2.6.18-xen] Add "#ifdef ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM" to archtecture specific file_operations.


  • To: Jun Kamada <kama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:37 +0100
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:58:34 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcfDolRQkvA5PC+VEdyh5AAX8io7RQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Re: [Xen-changelog] [linux-2.6.18-xen] Add "#ifdef ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM" to archtecture specific file_operations.

On 11/7/07 06:44, "Jun Kamada" <kama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> We define it in asm/mach-xen/asm/io.h.
>> 
>> However, the patch *is* of questionable value. It guards the only non-static
>> definition in the file with #ifdef ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM. Which begs the question
>> why you would build the file at all if !ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM. I'll revert it.
> 
> I'm sorry that I had posted the incomplete patch. I will attach a new
> one modified. The patch resolves ploblems mentioned above?

The case of building drivers/xen/char/mem.c, yet not defining
ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM, does not seem useful. Who will pick up and use the
mem_fops defined by drivers/xen/char/mem.c?

At the very least this seems abusive of ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM, and you might be
better off defining a different macro name? But I think you need to explain
to us what it is you're actually trying to achieve.

 -- Keir


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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.