On Friday 08 February 2008, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 15:02 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > With commit 698dd4ba6b12e34e1e432c944c01478c0b2cd773, swap_pte() was > > moved into view of both MMU and !MMU, but uses functions only provided by > > MMU. Here we stub out the function for !MMU ports. > > I'm not sure if this is right compared to my original patch. Does it > ever make sense to ask "is this pte a swap entry?" on a machine with no > MMU? Presumably this also means it has no ptes too, right? In which > case, it's better to comment the whole function out. Then when someone > tries to ask the above meaningless question, they get a compile error > rather than a meaningless answer.
honestly, doesnt matter to me since none of the code that currently utilizes this function is used in no-mmu context. if you want to just put the whole thing in CONFIG_MMU, then go for it. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.