On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:39:54 +0100
David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > #else
> > #define get_unmapped_area_mem NULL
> > #endif
>
> Blech.
>
> Of course, I could just declare the new symbols weak, and stick
> get_unmapped_area_mem() and mem_bdi in their own file which would be
> conditional on !CONFIG_MMU.
Or you could use the approach I suggested, like wot everyone else does.
> > This changes behaviour, doesn't it?
>
> Yes.
>
> > But only for !CONFIG_MMU kernels?
>
> Yes. For the moment, nothing in MMU world actually looks at these
> capabilities, though perhaps they should.
>
> > Perhaps some additional commentary around this is needed.
>
> Perhaps... or perhaps it should have different capabilities if there's an MMU.
>
> Is doing a private mapping of /dev/mem a valid thing to do anyway, even if
> there is an MMU?
It would be strange, I guess. But the important thing is to not change
behaviour.
-
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]
