On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 02:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> can you explain why u32 would be outlawed? Surely it's trivial to do a
>> typedef for u32 on BSD for drm ??
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 02:57:17AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> If there are nice standard types (uint32_t or u_int32_t, can't remember
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> Does this look better? Maybe a macro (or a typedef?) for the type of the
> last argument would still be a good idea? Or is there yet a better way?
I'm going to regret suggesting this, but how about:
(a) a typedef for the arg itself
(
On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 14:33, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did
>> the equivalent of this in the original patch?
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 02:50:30PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> This is about the canonical DRM code
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> No, this is Linux specific.
> How does this patch look?
Okay, you did something weird with nopage args, but I thought I did
the equivalent of this in the original patch?
-- wli
