On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:57:39 +0200, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:16:07PM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>>>>+obj-$(CONFIG_USB) += common.o
>>>>+obj-$(CONFIG_USB_GADGET) += common.o
>>>Will this cause problems? For example, what if CONFIG_USB is Y and
>>>CONFIG_USB_GADGET is M?
>>>Also, it seems a little silly to have an entire kernel module devoted
>>>to a single, little function.
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:06:43 +0200, Alan Stern
<stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>You could do:
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT) += common.o
>
>which would build that subroutine into the main kernel whenever either
>side of the USB stack is enabled.
OK. I'll wait for any more possible comments and post changed version
by the end of the week.
if it's only for one single function, wouldn't a static inline in a
common header do ?
That would defeat the purpose a little. The code would not get duplicated
in many source files but the actual compiled code would end up in several
places.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@xxxxxxxxxx>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
