On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 10:58 -0700, john stultz wrote: > On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 12:11 -0400, Peter Keilty wrote: > > Daniel Walker wrote: > > >On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 11:42 -0400, Peter Keilty wrote: > > >>>There is a read(), and a vread() did you modify the slow syscall path to > > >>>use the vread()? > > >>> > > >John mentioned that he thought fsys_mmio_ptr could be held in the vread > > >pointer. vread() is used in x86 for vsyscalls. It looks like you've used > > >the update_vsyscall() which is also used for vsyscalls. So vread could > > >also be used .. Have you considered that at all? > > > > > > > > No, but yes it can be done, overloading the meaning. > > Yea. I'm not really psyched about overloading the vread pointer's use. I > mentioned it could be done if the #ifdef was objected to, but it seems a > bit abusive. The #ifdef isn't great, but I think its something I can > live with for now. At least its explicit.
Use of config options like that is a bad precedence I think, which is why I commented on it .. Since we have a vread pointer that exists already, and it's used a very similar purpose it seems like bloat to just add another pointer.. We could change the vread to be a plain void pointer, then let each architecture use it however they want. Daniel - 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/
