From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754800AbZEULIw@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754800AbZEULIw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 21 May 2009 07:08:52 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752063AbZEULIp
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 21 May 2009 07:08:45 -0400
Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:26720 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751635AbZEULIo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 21 May 2009 07:08:44 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.41,227,1241409600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="4379404"
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
CC: "jeremy@goop.org" <jeremy@goop.org>,
       "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
       "beckyb@kernel.crashing.org" <beckyb@kernel.crashing.org>,
       "okir@suse.de" <okir@suse.de>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
       "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "mingo@elte.hu" <mingo@elte.hu>, "gregkh@suse.de" <gregkh@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <1242903785.22654.157.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
References: <20090521175436L.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	 <1242901630.22654.135.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	 <1242901733.22654.138.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	 <20090521193910W.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	 <1242903785.22654.157.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:08:42 +0100
Message-ID: <1242904122.22654.162.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 07:03 -0400, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 06:39 -0400, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2009 11:28:53 +0100
> > Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
> >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_XEN
> > > +extern int xen_range_needs_mapping(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t
> size);
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline int xen_range_needs_mapping(phys_addr_t paddr,
> size_t size) { return 0; }
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > I know Xen can do something like this but you think that this is
> > clean?
> 
> Well, defining a static inline function when a CONFIG option is
> disabled is fairly idiomatic in the kernel and in general hiding these
> sorts of things in the headers in this way is preferred to having them
> in .c files.

Although I do concede that the function definition would probably be
better placed in a xen specific header.

Ian.