From: Andi Kleen <a...@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 <a...@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. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
