From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:59:20 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, axboe@kernel.dk,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200608281352.58281.arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com> <22040.1156537104@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> <29516.1156859236@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <29516.1156859236@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200608291559.20802.arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 860
Lines: 28

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 15:47, David Howells wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > You could write it as
> > 
> > bounce-$(CONFIG_MMU) += bounce.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BLOCK) ?+= $(bounce-y)
> 
> I could, yes, but why? ?What does it buy? ?I think this:
> 
> ????????ifeq ($(CONFIG_MMU)$(CONFIG_BLOCK),yy)
> ????????obj-y += bounce.o
> ????????endif
> 
> is clearer.

I remember having seen the first one in the kernel before
(e.g. in arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile), but not the other one.

I agree that it doesn't make much difference at all, but it
would be nice to be consistant.

	Arnd <><
-
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/