Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yeah, I was thinking of that. In fact, the reason I became aware of that is
> > that I wanted to use another pseudo device with no ops for the proxy memory
> > objects (but for those I need a close function, so I made my own device ops
> > structure)
> Yeah, I was thinking of that. In fact, the reason I became aware of that is
> that I wanted to use another pseudo device with no ops for the proxy memory
> objects (but for those I need a close function, so I made my own device ops
> structure). I know that this is lame, as one reason against a
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 07:17:12PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I think we need a flag in the device structure to mark the type of the
> > device more properly than the device ops does. In particular, I am worried
> > about someone sending an io perm modify IPC to a non-io perm device port, it
> I think we need a flag in the device structure to mark the type of the
> device more properly than the device ops does. In particular, I am worried
> about someone sending an io perm modify IPC to a non-io perm device port, it
> doesn't look to me as if I coded any guard against this into it.
T
Hi,
I think we need a flag in the device structure to mark the type of the
device more properly than the device ops does. In particular, I am worried
about someone sending an io perm modify IPC to a non-io perm device port, it
doesn't look to me as if I coded any guard against this into it.
Than
