On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 07 December 2011, Semwal, Sumit wrote: >> > >> > Do you have a use case for making the interface compile-time disabled? >> > I had assumed that any code using it would make no sense if it's not >> > available so you don't actually need this. >> >> Ok. Though if we keep the interface compile-time disabled, the users >> can actually check and fail or fall-back gracefully when the API is >> not available; If I remove it, anyways the users would need to do the >> same compile time check whether API is available or not, right? > > If you have to do a compile-time check for the config symbol, it's better > to do it the way you did here than in the caller. > > My guess was that no caller would actually require this, because when you > write a part of a subsystem to interact with the dma-buf infrastructure, > you would always disable compilation of an extire file that deals with > everything related to struct dma_buf, not just stub out the calls. Right; that would be ideal, but we may not be able to ask each user to do so - especially when the sharing part might be interspersed in existing buffer handling code. So for now, I would like to keep it as it-is. > > Arnd > BR, ~Sumit. > -- _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
