Re: [PATCH] Start of compat32.h (again)

[David S. Miller]

   From: Stephen Rothwell <[e-mail]>
   Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:57:29 +1100
   
   On 01 Dec 2002 20:46:40 -0800 "David S. Miller" <[e-mail]> wrote:
   >
   > On Sun, 2002-12-01 at 10:54, Linus Torvalds wrote:
   > > But if the file is in kernel/xxxx, it 
   > > will be noticed - at least as well as it would be if it was uglifying 
   > > regular files with #ifdef's.
   > 
   > Ok, this I accept.
   
   So, does this mean you are happy if I produce patches with kernel/compat.c
   in them rather than code #ifdef'ed into the mainline? This, of course,
   begs the question of whether it should all go into kernel/compat.c or
   should there be an fs/compat.c, mm/compat.c ...

Yes, I'm fine with it.

My personal take on the next issue is that I do believe we should
have fs/compat.c et al.

But for you initial patch, just put it into kernel/compat.c