Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20091028.012816.115332412.davem@davemloft.net>
To: andi@firstfloor.org
Cc: airlied@linux.ie, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de
Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20091028081909.GP7744@basil.fritz.box>
References: <20091028075908.GO7744@basil.fritz.box>
	<20091028.011141.267473962.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20091028081909.GP7744@basil.fritz.box>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1311
Lines: 34

From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:19:09 +0100

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:11:41AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:59:08 +0100
>> 
>> >>  	}
>> >> -	chunk_array_ptr = (uint64_t *)(unsigned long)(cs->chunks);
>> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> >> +	if (is_compat_task())
>> > 
>> > Are the COMPAT ifdefs really needed? The compiler should optimize that
>> > away anyways on non compat aware architectures, shouldn't it?
>> 
>> There are no non-compat is_compat_task() definitions, nor are there
>> non-compat build definitions of compat_uptr_t and the assosciated
>> interfaces.
> 
> That seems wrong then, better fix that too? It would be certainly better
> than adding a lot of ifdefs.

That's usually done by seperating the compat code into a seperate
file and "obj-$(CONFIG_COMPAT) += foo.o" in the Makefile.

That's not really possible here.

Sure, longer term we can provide those kinds of definitions to avoid
the ifdefs, but that's not what my change is about. :-)
--
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/