Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | 06 Aug 2002 18:54:31 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 16:06, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > The STANDALONE thing? I'm not convinced that's really any cleaner, > it makes even more of a mess of io.h than there was already (though > we could consider that a lost cause ;-)). > > What's your objection to just throwing in a defn of xquad_portio? > A preference for burying the messy stuff in header files? Seems to > me that as you have to define STANDALONE now, the point is moot.
Because you are assuming there will be -one- kind of wackomatic PC system - IBM's. The chances are there will be more than one as other vendors like HP, Compaq and Dell begin shipping stuff. Having __STANDALONE__ works for all the cases instead of exporting xquad this hpmagic that and compaq the other in an ever growing cess pit
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |