Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 23 April 2008, Will Newton wrote:
> I implemented the approach you suggested - Kconfig symbol and
> cond_syscall definition. I think I actually like the previous approach
> better:
> 
> 1. The arch Kconfig files are quite non-uniform compared to unistd.h
> so the definitions wind up at different places in the file which is a
> bit messy.
> 2. Changes to Kconfig may cause churn in defconfigs perhaps?
> 3. There is more churn in arch Kconfig than unistd.h so getting a
> cross arch patch applied is likely to be more difficult.
> 4. The patch is about 4 times as many lines.
> 
> What do you think?

I still feel that the original patch was more helpful and consistent
with how we do it for the existing obsolete syscalls.

Note that there is a much simpler solution if you just use an
"#ifdef __NR_sys_sysfs" around the definition of the syscall, but
that has another disadvantage in that it is harder to spot when
new architectures get it wrong.

	Arnd <><
--
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/