Paul Mackerras wrote: > +static struct resource *resource_parent(unsigned long b, unsigned long n, > + int flags, socket_info_t *s) > +static inline int check_io_resource(unsigned long b, unsigned long n, > + socket_info_t *s) > +static inline int check_mem_resource(unsigned long b, unsigned long n, > + socket_info_t *s) > +static struct resource *make_resource(unsigned long b, unsigned long n, > + int flags, char *name) > +static int request_io_resource(unsigned long b, unsigned long n, > + char *name, socket_info_t *s) > +static int request_mem_resource(unsigned long b, unsigned long n, > + char *name, socket_info_t *s) patch looks ok. I wonder if this stuff is useful to other users? resource_parent appears to be the only actual user of socket_info_t data. Since resource_parent only uses one datum out of all of socket_info_t, you could reasonably eliminate this code's dependency on socket_info_t. -- Jeff Garzik | A recent study has shown that too much soup Building 1024 | can cause malaise in laboratory mice. 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/
