On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:13:39 +0100 Will Newton wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This patch introduces a __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS #define for > > architectures that support the sysfs(2) system call. At the moment > > that's everybody but blackfin, but future architectures may want to > > save the (admittedly small) code size that it adds to the kernel as > > well. > > > > (patch attached as well as inline because gmail seems to mangle my whitespace) > > > > --- > > >From d0746366e8ccb5fbaa6c9945540cecbe0c421222 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Will Newton <will.newton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:57:03 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS. > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Newton <will.newton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > All arches that want the sysfs(2) system call should define this symbol. > > Arches such as blackfin that do not implement the system call don't compile > > the code and save some small amount of space. > > Is there any reason that this couldn't (and shouldn't) be done > in the Kconfig space and done as documented in > Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt ? It can be done with Kconfig. Whether it should be or not depends on your point of view, hence RFC. Currently __ARCH_WANT macros is the way syscalls are enabled and disabled across architectures. If there's consensus that it should be done via Kconfig that could certainly be implmented, but that's a different patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
