On 27.10.2015 [17:53:22 -0700], David Miller wrote: > From: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 15:20:10 -0700 > > > Well, looks like I should spin up a v4 anyways for the powerpc changes. > > So, to make sure I understand your point, should I make the generic > > dma_get_page_shift a compile-error kind of thing? It will only fail on > > architectures that actually build the NVME driver (as the only caller). > > But I'm not sure how exactly to achieve that, if you could give a bit > > more detail I'd appreciate it! > > Yes, I am basically suggesting to simply not provide a default at all. For my own edification -- what is the way that gets resolved? I guess I mean it seems like linux-next would cease to compile because of my new series. Would my patches just get kicked out of -next for introducing that (or even via the 0-day notifications), or should I put something into the commit message indicating it is an API introduction? Sorry for the tentativeness, I have not introduce a cross-architecture API like this before. Thanks, Nish > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
