lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] uselib: default depending if libc5 was used
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:35:24PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On 1 December 2015 at 10:46, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:07:10 -0800 Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
> >>> IA32_EMULATION depends on X86_64, so doesn't that reduce to:
> >>> def_bool ALPHA || M68K || SPARC || X86_32 || IA32_EMULATION
>
> Ok. looks cleaner to me.
>
> >> It's a bit old fashioned to add an expression like this at the
> >> definition site anyway. The cool new thing is to do
> >>
> >> def_bool ARCH_WANT_USELIB
> >>
> >> then go off and define ARCH_WANT_USELIB in the appropriate places in
> >> the per-arch Kconfig files.
> >
> > That's useful for new to-be-implemented features, but this dependency list is
> > (hopefully) cast in stone. No new architecture should need this.
> > So I see no reason to clutter up more Kconfig files.
>
> I agree. Splitting oneline patch to a patch that changes 5 files around kernel
> tree only risks merge conflicts in this case.

True; I take back what I said about that approach being cleaner. It
does ease maintenance in cases where the list may change, but in this
case, the list should never change again.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-01 17:41    [W:0.058 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site