Abramo Bagnara wrote:
> "David S. Miller" wrote:
> > There is a school of thought which believes that:
> >
> > struct xdev_regs {
> > u32 reg1;
> > u32 reg2;
> > };
> >
> > val = readl(®s->reg2);
> >
> > is cleaner than:
> >
> > #define REG1 0x00
> > #define REG2 0x04
> >
> > val = readl(regs + REG2);
> The problem I see is that with the former solution nothing prevents from
> to do:
>
> regs->reg2 = 13;
Why should there be something to prevent that?
If a programmer does that to an ioremapped area, that is a bug. Pure
and simple.
We do not need extra mechanisms simply to guard against programmers
doing the wrong thing all the time.
> That's indeed the reason to change ioremap prototype for 2.5.
Say what??
I have heard a good argument from rth about creating a pci_ioremap,
which takes a struct pci_dev argument. But there is no reason to change
the ioremap prototype.
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik | Game called on account of naked chick
Building 1024 |
MandrakeSoft |
-
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/
