Zachary Amsden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If this is really a prelude to introducing more subarchitectures we
> > need to fix the infrastructure, so it is obvious what is going on.
> > I would really like to see a machine vector, so we could compile in
> > multiple subarchitectures at the same time. That makes building
> > a generic kernel easier, and the requirement that the we need
> > to build a generic kernel makes the structure of the subarchiteture
> > hooks hierarchical and you wind up with code whose dependencies
> > are visible. Instead of the current linker and preprocessor magic.
> > Functions named hook are impossible to comprehend what they
> > are supposed to do while reading through the code.
> >
>
> I see your point. Are you thinking of something like:
>
> struct subarch_hooks subarch_hook_vector = {
> .machine_power_off = machine_power_off,
> .machine_halt = machine_halt,
> .machine_irq_setup = machine_irq_setup,
> .machine_subarch_setup = machine_subarch_probe
> ...
> };
>
> And machine_subarch_probe can dynamically change this vector if it
> confirms that the platform is appropriate?
I don't recall anyone expressing any desire for the ability to set these
things at runtime. Unless there is such a requirement I'd suggest that the
best way to address Eric's point is to simply rename the relevant functions
from foo() to subarch_foo().
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
