From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754178AbcEYJHt (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 05:07:49 -0400 Received: from science.sciencehorizons.net ([71.41.210.147]:44337 "HELO ns.sciencehorizons.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754138AbcEYJHr (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 05:07:47 -0400 Date: 25 May 2016 05:07:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20160525090745.8999.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net> From: "George Spelvin" To: geert@linux-m68k.org, linux@sciencehorizons.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] String hash improvements Cc: alistair.francis@xilinx.com, bfields@fieldses.org, gerg@linux-m68k.org, jlayton@poochiereds.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, michal.simek@xilinx.com, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, uclinux-h8-devel@lists.sourceforge.jp, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> +#if defined(CONFIG_M68000) || defined(CONFIG_M68010) > As I said before, I don't think you need this check, given HAVE_ARCH_HASH is > selected by M68000, and M68010 doesn't exist. I was going belt & suspenders on general principles, but yes, I'm happy to leave it out. I noticed that CONFIG_M68010 doesn't exist in Linus' tree, but you recommended it, so I thought you might know something I don't. > As you only include if CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_HASH > is defined, you can also just call the arch-specific one . Yes, that's a possibility, too. But weren't we still discussing whether I should use conditional #inclusion based on a symbol, or asm-generic? If neither of us has a killer argument that convinces the other, style issues like this are amenable to voting, so I was going to wait a little bit for others to chime in. Thank you very much for the comments!