Re: [patch] Introduce CONFIG_HAS_DMA.

[Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:36:31 -0700,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:

> I went back and read the thread leading up to this patch and I am of
> the opinion that John's approach (adding more stubs to
> dma-mapping-broken.h:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117219377712232&w=2)  is needed in
> _addition_ to this Kconfig option.  In my particular case I have an
> API with a DMA and a non-DMA path written in such a way that the DMA
> path can be compiled away.  Without dma-mapping-broken.h support the
> API is unnecessarily forced to violate point 2 of
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches (#ifdefs are ugly).

IMO, well-placed #ifdefs are preferrable to dragging non-working code
around. Like:

- put the DMA path in a file only build for MY_STUFF_USE_DMA
- let MY_STUFF select MY_STUFF_USE_DMA if HAS_DMA
- have a header file that points to the implementation for
  MY_STUFF_USE_DMA and uses well defined stubs for !MY_STUFF_USE_DMA,
  like returning ICannotDoThat for check_if_can_do() (kind of like what
  include/linux/sysfs.h does, for example)

This contains the #ifdefs in a header, doesn't compile stuff that won't
work anyway on !HAS_DMA, and adds the ability to disable
MY_STUFF_USE_DMA even if HAS_DMA at a later time if someone wants it.

> In other words let CONFIG_HAS_DMA prevent pure DMA code from being
> built, but do not preclude "clever" implementations from calling
> broken code.

If it calls broken code, it may not be so "clever" after all :)

What I don't like about this is

- compiles stuff that is not needed on !HAS_DMA
- worse, compiles stuff that will not work on !HAS_DMA
- does not encourage to split code properly into a DMA and a non-DMA
  part
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/