On 10/10/24 19:57, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
On 10/10/24 19:01, Mina Almasry wrote:
...
To be honest the tradeoff wins in the other direction for me. The
extra boiler plate is not that bad, and we can be sure that any code
We can count how often people break builds because a change
was compiled just with one configuration in mind. Unfortunately,
I did it myself a fair share of times, and there is enough of
build robot reports like that. It's not just about boiler plate
but rather overall maintainability.
that touches net_devmem_dmabuf_binding will get a valid internals
since it won't compile if the feature is disabled. This could be
critical and could be preventing bugs.
I don't see the concern, if devmem is compiled out there wouldn't
be a devmem provider to even create it, and you don't need to
worry. If you think someone would create a binding without a devmem,
then I don't believe it'd be enough to hide a struct definition
to prevent that in the first place.
I think the maintainers can tell whichever way they think is
better, I can drop the patch, even though I think it's much
better with it.
Having a second thought, I'll drop the patch as asked. The
change is not essential to the series, I shouldn't care about
devmem here.
--
Pavel Begunkov
