Hi, Kama, Keir and Isaku >On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:00:37 +0100 >Keir Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Jun Kamada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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 [email protected] http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
