Hi, Kama, Keir and Isaku
>On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:37 +0100
>Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The case of building drivers/xen/char/mem.c, yet not defining
>> ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM, does not seem useful. Who will pick up and use the
>> mem_fops defined by drivers/xen/char/mem.c?
>>
>> At the very least this seems abusive of ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM, and you might be
>> better off defining a different macro name? But I think you need to explain
>> to us what it is you're actually trying to achieve.
>
>I would like to deal with the drivers/xen/char/mem.c as follows. How do
>you think about it? It will cause any problem?
>
>- I will post a patch, which removes definition of ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM, to
> xen-ia64-devel later.
>- If needed, I will post a revert patch of
> "xen-ia64-devel.hg c/s 12544:395aa5609e6d". (Creating the revert patch
> may be difficult...)
Xen-ia64 already don't need to modify drivers/xen/char/mem.c.
But as you mentioned, current drivers/xen/char/mem.c has some parts
for xen-ia64. So we may need to cleanup drivers/xen/char/mem.c.
I made a attached revert patch of xen-unstablecs12513[1]
(same as xen-ia64 cs12544). Keir, Isaku, how about it?
If the patch is applied, we cannot compile linux-xen-ia64.
But I have a patch of reverting cs12873[2],
if the patch is also applied, we can compile linux-xen-ia64 again.
I think Kama will post this patch to xen-ia64-devel soon.
Signed-off-by: Akio Takebe <takebe_akio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jun Kamada <kama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[1] cs12513
http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/395aa5609e6d
[2] cs12873
http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/e5e6893ec699
Best Regards,
Akio Takebe
revert_12513.patch
Description: Binary data
revert_12873.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home