![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 17 Mar 2005, at 04:41, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Our io_remap_pfn_range() patches don't contain many collisions. > My first patch [adding io_remap_pfn_range() to all arches] > <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=111049473410099&w=2> > does go a little further than yours in that regard. > > Also, I was under the impression (only, so this is a question) > that this type of construct (from your patch): > > +#ifndef io_remap_pfn_range > +#define io_remap_pfn_range remap_pfn_range > +#endif > > only works for #defines (macros), while in some arches > io_remap_page_range() (and presumably io_remap_pfn_range) > is a function [sparc32/64] or inline function [mips]. > > My first patch referenced a future patch to convert > all callers of io_remap_page_range() to io_remap_pfn_range(), > which I have now done and built succesfully on 8 arches. > I'll post it now. The way in which you introduce io_remap_pfn_range() into all architectures is much better than my method, and doesn't depend on io_remap_pfn_range being a macro. Apart from that, yes: our driver patches are quite disjoint and complement each other. Hopefully a combined patch could eliminate some of the 'ifdef sparc's that are scattered around. :-) -- Keir - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||