On Wed, 9 May 2007 18:21:58 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems bogus to declare compat_sys_futimesat in syscalls.h and > compat_sys_utimensat in compat.h. Your patch is fine, since there > are precedents for both, but maybe we should agree on one place and > then move all of the compat_sys_ declarations there. My preference is to split them like this so that the architectures that don't need the compat infrastructure are not cluttered with it (if we declare the compat routines in syscalls.h, then it should include compat.h). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [email protected] http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgp9P3ELC3FLr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- [PATCH 1/2] Declare {compat_}sys_utimensat
- From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Declare {compat_}sys_utimensat
- From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 1/2] Declare {compat_}sys_utimensat
- Prev by Date: Re: [patches] [PATCH] [21/22] x86_64: Extend bzImage protocol for relocatable bzImage
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC 2/3] SLUB: Implement targeted reclaim and partial list defragmentation
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Declare {compat_}sys_utimensat
- Next by thread: [PATCH] sunrpc: fix crash in rpc_malloc()
- Index(es):
 |