Re: CONFIG_64_BIT

[Andi Kleen]

Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> What do people think of CONFIG_64_BIT?  It saves us from using
> !(IA64 || MIPS64 || PARISC64 || S390X || SPARC64 || X86_64) or
> the X86_64 people deciding their architecture is more important.
> 
> I also considered CONFIG_ILP32 vs CONFIG_LP64 (since that's the real
> problem with, eg, megaraid), but that requires more explanation and
> offers people several ways to get it wrong (should I depend on ILP32
> or !LP64?)

At least for code BITS_PER_LONG == 64 is already good enough.

For Kconfigs it may make sense, but is there any Config rule that 
checks for all 64bit archs (opposed to checking for specific archs)?
I cannot thinkg of any.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> What do people think of CONFIG_64_BIT?  It saves us from using
> !(IA64 || MIPS64 || PARISC64 || S390X || SPARC64 || X86_64) or
> the X86_64 people deciding their architecture is more important.
> 
> I also considered CONFIG_ILP32 vs CONFIG_LP64 (since that's the real
> problem with, eg, megaraid), but that requires more explanation and
> offers people several ways to get it wrong (should I depend on ILP32
> or !LP64?)

At least for code BITS_PER_LONG == 64 is already good enough.

For Kconfigs it may make sense, but is there any Config rule that 
checks for all 64bit archs (opposed to checking for specific archs)?
I cannot thinkg of any.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/