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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
