lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] lib/atomic64_test: do not build on non-atomic64 systems
    On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:55, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:23:37 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
    >> On Thursday, October 21, 2010 18:02:50 Andrew Morton wrote:
    >> > On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:27:15 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
    >> > > If the arch doesn't provide atomic64 functionality (there are quite a
    >> > > few), then don't bother trying to build this test.
    >> >
    >> > I don't get it.  If the arch doesn't implement atomic64 then this file
    >> > will get zillions of build errors, won't it?
    >>
    >> ... which is why i added the ifdef protection
    >
    > So the changelog was poor.  Please write complete changelogs so I need
    > to have this sort of conversation less often?

    the changelog seems pretty clear to me. arch doesnt provide atomic64,
    so dont build code that uses atomic64.

    > Why doesn't this cause lots of you-broke-my-build complaints?  Nobody's
    > running allmodonfig?

    that's how i noticed. perhaps the other arches that dont provide
    atomic64 arent doing as many build tests as i am.

    >> > > diff --git a/lib/atomic64_test.c b/lib/atomic64_test.c
    >> > > index 250ed11..0ac1a66 100644
    >> > > --- a/lib/atomic64_test.c
    >> > > +++ b/lib/atomic64_test.c
    >> > > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
    >> > >
    >> > >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
    >> > >  #include <asm/atomic.h>
    >> > >
    >> > > +#ifdef ATOMIC64_INIT
    >> >
    >> > hm, that's a bit lazy.  It should really use a CONFIG_HAVE_ thing.  What
    >> > a pita.
    >>
    >> ATOMIC64_INIT is required for atomic64 headers to provide, and having a
    >> Kconfig knob doesnt gain anything else
    >
    > I know that.  But the standard way for an architecture to indicate to
    > the core that it impements a feature is for it to define CONFIG_HAVE_*.
    > Picking some related #define which architectures happen to implement
    > is atypical and unexpected.
    >
    > Will it cause problems?  Probably not, unless the arch goes and defines
    > ATOMIC64_INIT without actually implementing atomic64.  But it's
    > atypical and unexpected and, yes, lazy!

    you can say "lazy" all you like. i dont see the point in going that route.
    -mike
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-22 01:07    [W:0.023 / U:89.760 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site