Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Will Newton <will.newton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:40 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  >  > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:23PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
>  >  >  > +config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS
>  >  >  > +     bool
>  >  >  > +     default y
>  >  >  > +
>  >  >  >  source "init/Kconfig"
>  >  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  Sorry, I meant something more like
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  config ARCH_HAS_SYS_SYSFS
>  >  >         def_bool !BLACKFIN
>  >  >         help
>  >  >           Obsolete sys_sysfs syscall
>  >  >
>  >  >  in init/Kconfig
>  >  >
>  >  >  But, it's your patch, you can do it however you like. :)
>  >
>  >  That's definitely shorter - but it feels a bit more like #ifdef
>  >  CONFIG_BLACKFIN which is explicitly what I don't want to do, because
>  >  I'm not actually interested in blackfin. ;-)
>
>  i'd have to agree that updating asm/unistd.h fits better with existing
>  paradigm.  if we want to talk about converting *all cases* to Kconfig,
>  we can do it in a separate thread.  splitting the design between two
>  different files is simply confusing to everyone involved as they spend
>  their time going "well which way am *i* supposed to do it".

thinking about this some more ... we actually have three choices here,
not just two.  checksyscalls.sh introduced a new form in asm/unistd.h:
#define __IGNORE_sysfs
perhaps we should be unifying the __ARCH_WANT_XXX and the __IGNORE_XXX
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/