Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 6:54 PM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> +/*
>>> + * FIXME: Acessing the desc_struct through its fields is more elegant,
>>> + * and should be the one valid thing to do. However, a lot of open code
>>> + * still touches the a and b ac
On Dec 6, 2007 6:54 PM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * FIXME: Acessing the desc_struct through its fields is more elegant,
> > + * and should be the one valid thing to do. However, a lot of open code
> > + * still touches the a and b acessors, and doing this allow us to do
> +/*
> + * FIXME: Acessing the desc_struct through its fields is more elegant,
> + * and should be the one valid thing to do. However, a lot of open code
> + * still touches the a and b acessors, and doing this allow us to do it
> + * incrementally. We keep the signature as a struct, rather than
On Dec 6, 2007 5:24 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > This patch aims to make the access of struct desc_struct variables
> > equal across architectures. In this patch, I unify the i386 and x86_64
> > versions under an anonymous union, keepin
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> This patch aims to make the access of struct desc_struct variables
> equal across architectures. In this patch, I unify the i386 and x86_64
> versions under an anonymous union, keeping the way they are accessed
> untouched (a and b for 32-bit code, individual bit-
This patch aims to make the access of struct desc_struct variables
equal across architectures. In this patch, I unify the i386 and x86_64
versions under an anonymous union, keeping the way they are accessed
untouched (a and b for 32-bit code, individual bit-fields for 64-bit).
This solution is not
6 matches
Mail list logo
