RE: [PATCHSET] PC-9800 subarch. support for 2.5.61 (2/26) APM

[Osamu Tomita]

-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Hellwig
To: Osamu Tomita
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List; Alan Cox
Sent: 2003/02/18 19:37
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] PC-9800 subarch. support for 2.5.61 (2/26) APM

> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 10:49:55PM +0900, Osamu Tomita wrote:
>> +#include "io_ports.h"
> 
> Isn't this introduced in a later patch?  Please make sure your patchkit
> never breaks the compile of the existing subarches when applied in order.

Of course, I never want impact on other architecture.
io_ports.h is in 'core patch (8/26)'.

>> 
>>  		"pushl %%edi\n\t"
>>  		"pushl %%ebp\n\t"
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PC9800
>> +		"pushfl\n\t"
>> +#endif
>>  		"lcall *%%cs:apm_bios_entry\n\t"
>>  		"setc %%al\n\t"
>>  		"popl %%ebp\n\t"
>> @@ -682,6 +687,9 @@
>>  		__asm__ __volatile__(APM_DO_ZERO_SEGS
>>  			"pushl %%edi\n\t"
>>  			"pushl %%ebp\n\t"
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_PC9800
>> +			"pushfl\n\t"
>> +#endif
> 
> Maybe add a
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PC9800
> #define COND_PUSHFL	"pushfl\n\t"
> #else
> #define COND_PUSHFL	"pushfl\n\t"
> #endif
> 
> to the top of this file and then use it?
> 
I think "#ifndef"s are clear and readable rather than macro definition
at this situation. 

> +#ifndef CONFIG_X86_PC9800
> 
> Once again please always use #ifdef instead of #ifndef where possible.
I see.

Thanks,
Osamu Tomita