On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Antti Kantee wrote:
Include "ioconf.h" I think.
Tried that. It works for compiling the kernel. Unfortunately,
swwdog is included in rump, and there doesn't seem to be an ioconf.h
available for the librump build.
Well, whatever. I don't think I want to look at that.
On Mon Jul 19 2010 at 01:28:42 +, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 05:31:42PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> >
> > >>>Include "ioconf.h" I think.
> > >>
> > >>Tried that. It works for compiling the kernel. Unfortunately,
> > >>sww
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 05:31:42PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
>
> >>>Include "ioconf.h" I think.
> >>
> >>Tried that. It works for compiling the kernel. Unfortunately,
> >>swwdog is included in rump, and there doesn't seem to be an ioconf.h
> >>avail
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
Include "ioconf.h" I think.
Tried that. It works for compiling the kernel. Unfortunately,
swwdog is included in rump, and there doesn't seem to be an ioconf.h
available for the librump build.
Well, whatever. I don't think I want to look at that.
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 04:52:58PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
[...]
> >>+
> >>+extern struct cfdriver swwdog_cd;
> >
> >Include "ioconf.h" I think.
>
> Tried that. It works for compiling the kernel. Unfortunately,
> swwdog is included in rump, and there doesn't seem to be an ioconf.h
> available
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
Not really objections, just a few comments.
+struct swwdog_softc *sc_swwdog = NULL;
That can't possibly be needed (and, if it was, you'd have to mutexify it
wouldn't you?).
The only purpose of this was to make sure we didn't "magically" get a
re
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:35:31PM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> (Resent, this time with attachment!)
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:14:57AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> >>Currently, pseudo-devices are silently attached to the device tree
> >>withou
(Resent, this time with attachment!)
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:14:57AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
Currently, pseudo-devices are silently attached to the device tree
without giving the driver any access to the associated device_t
structure. As a res
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010, Quentin Garnier wrote:
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:14:57AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
Currently, pseudo-devices are silently attached to the device tree
without giving the driver any access to the associated device_t
structure. As a result, the pseudo-device driver is unabl
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 07:14:57AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
> Currently, pseudo-devices are silently attached to the device tree
> without giving the driver any access to the associated device_t
> structure. As a result, the pseudo-device driver is unable to
> access much of the pmf framework.
Currently, pseudo-devices are silently attached to the device tree
without giving the driver any access to the associated device_t
structure. As a result, the pseudo-device driver is unable to access
much of the pmf framework. In particular, the pseudo-device cannot
register a suspend/resume/
11 matches
Mail list logo
