From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse•com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu•citrix.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation•org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle•com>,
"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, 02 Oct 2012 12:54:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <506AF20C020000780009F0B5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1210021240020.29232@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
>>> 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.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-02 11:54 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 [this message]
2012-10-02 12:55 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
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=506AF20C020000780009F0B5@nat28.tlf.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse$(echo .)com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation$(echo .)org \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle$(echo .)com \
--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