From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle•com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse•com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu•citrix.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation•org>,
"linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
"linux-next@vger•kernel.org" <linux-next@vger•kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with Linus' tree
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 08:55:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121002125519.GB9009@phenom.dumpdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <506AF20C020000780009F0B5@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:54:20PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 02.10.12 at 13:45, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu•citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > Considering that dbgp doesn't seem to be very useful without PCI at the
> >> > moment, could we just turn it into:
> >> >
> >> > dom0-$(CONFIG_PCI) += dbgp.o
> >> >
> >> > ?
> >>
> >> Better not - the code is specifically not PCI-only. And I can't see
> >> how it would be harmful to be compiled on e.g. ARM (so the
> >> merge perhaps really should use XEN_DOM0 alone, without
> >> X86. If anything (and that may indeed be a minor oversight of
> >> the original patch) one might want it to depend on USB_SUPPORT,
> >> as without that no in-tree debug port capable driver would be
> >> able to load (and hence interfere with Xen's use of the debug
> >> port). However, as long as it builds fine with USB_SUPPORT
> >> undefined (which I believe it does), having it in the shape it
> >> is allows for out-of-tree drivers as well (as long as they make
> >> use of the designated interface).
> >
> > OK for PCI.
> > Regarding USB_SUPPORT, considering that gbgp.c calls hcd_to_bus, I think
> > it would make sense to make it depend on it.
>
> As said - I'd prefer to do that only if indeed needed to get things
> to build without that option. Since include/usb/* doesn't reference
> CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT, I'm in favor of supporting at least those
> eventual out-of-tree drivers that do use the pre-existing data
> structures (and others shouldn't be calling pre-existing APIs
> anyway). But I wouldn't NAK a patch doing what you suggest
> either.
Could it depend on EARLY_PRINTK_DBGP ?
>
> Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-02 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-02 4:19 linux-next: manual merge of the xen-two tree with Linus' tree Stephen Rothwell
2012-10-02 10:44 ` Stefano Stabellini
2012-10-02 11:37 ` Jan Beulich
2012-10-02 11:45 ` Stefano Stabellini
2012-10-02 11:54 ` Jan Beulich
2012-10-02 12:55 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [this message]
2012-10-02 13:33 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121002125519.GB9009@phenom.dumpdata.com \
--to=konrad.wilk@oracle$(echo .)com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse$(echo .)com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation$(echo .)org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@eu$(echo .)citrix.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox