Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]

On Tuesday 29 August 2006 15:47, David Howells wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > You could write it as
> > 
> > bounce-$(CONFIG_MMU) += bounce.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_BLOCK)  += $(bounce-y)
> 
> I could, yes, but why?  What does it buy?  I think this:
> 
>         ifeq ($(CONFIG_MMU)$(CONFIG_BLOCK),yy)
>         obj-y += bounce.o
>         endif
> 
> is clearer.

I remember having seen the first one in the kernel before
(e.g. in arch/powerpc/kernel/Makefile), but not the other one.

I agree that it doesn't make much difference at all, but it
would be nice to be consistant.

	Arnd <><
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]
    • From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: Possible gpl problem?
• Next by Date: Re: Conversion to generic boolean
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 04/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Separate the bounce buffering code from the highmem code [try #4]
• Next by thread: [PATCH 07/18] [PATCH] BLOCK: Remove dependence on existence of blockdev_superblock [try #4]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]