From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756803AbYDVNQQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:16:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757374AbYDVNPn (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:15:43 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:49726 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756381AbYDVNPl (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:15:41 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "Will Newton" Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:15:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: "Linux Kernel list" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, monstr@seznam.cz, git@xilinx.com, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804221515.28075.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18z/Gyi7qzTAHF41shpe5l/c+/pijN2c4CF1RO 2UYK47v8OJfVEM7ii/Ft0tzbaf27NB8pdSiuODAN1vWr4a5C1j RWsN2vnsasKKgemN6DJRg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 22 April 2008, Will Newton wrote: > This patch introduces a __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SYSFS #define for > architectures that support the sysfs(2) system call. At the moment > that's everybody but blackfin, but future architectures may want to > save the (admittedly small) code size that it adds to the kernel as > well. Yes, good thing to have. Since we'll be getting a new architecture (microblaze) soon, I think we should extend this mechanism (even though it's ugly) to all syscalls that we don't want to have in new architectures and make sure that microblaze doesn't have to set any of them. Arnd <><