Re: [PATCH] binfmt_flat: minimum support for theBlackfin relocations

[Bernd Schmidt]

Paul Mundt wrote:
> This is making API changes where it's convenient for your platform to use
> this value, and there's no reason to change the API here at all.

Your proposed addition of flat_validate_relval is an API change, and 
very similar in nature to what I've done.
A local variable here is the most natural way to store this information. 
 What do you suggest we use, a global?  A member in the task struct?

> Why should all architectures have to change their APIs (not just adding
> new things mind you, also changing existing definitions) to accomodate
> something that can trivially be kept in the blackfin code?

I don't see how there's a burden given that we've provided patches, and 
most maintainers have already said their fine with it.  It seems to me 
that it's a natural and common thing for many architectures to be 
updated when new things are added to core code.


Bernd
--
This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers.
Analog Devices GmbH      Wilhelm-Wagenfeld-Str. 6      80807 Muenchen
Sitz der Gesellschaft Muenchen, Registergericht Muenchen HRB 40368
Geschaeftsfuehrer Thomas Wessel, William A. Martin, Margaret Seif
-
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/