Re: [PATCH gnumach] Remove unused [!MACH_KERNEL] driver code

2011-09-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
Guillem Jover, le Fri 09 Sep 2011 03:40:24 +0200, a écrit : > Use «unifdef -DMACK_KERNEL=1» as a starting point, but only remove > the code not exposed on public headers, the rest is needed to build > properly from userland. Applied, thanks. Samuel

Re: Interface for SCSI transactions ?

2011-09-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schmitt, le Fri 09 Sep 2011 12:08:39 +0200, a écrit : > > It's actually very simple to define an RPC, it essentially looks > > like a C function declaration, see ./include/device/device.defs > > for the device_set_status RPC declaration for instance. > > Ahum ... i will have to design such

Re: Interface for SCSI transactions ?

2011-09-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
Thomas Schmitt, le Sat 10 Sep 2011 13:46:23 +0200, a écrit : > device_t arrives in device_set_status() of gnumach/linux/dev/glue/block.c > as (void *) and gets casted to (struct block_data *). > This struct has an element > kdev_t dev; /* Linux device number */ Also notice the DECL_DATA and I

Re: Interface for SCSI transactions ?

2011-09-12 Thread Thomas Schmitt
Hi, > http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/microkernel/mach/mig/documentation.html Actually it is the link labeld "ps" on that page which delivers a description of the language: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/doc/unpublished/mig.ps My oldish gv has problems with page navigation in

Re: Interface for SCSI transactions ?

2011-09-12 Thread olafBuddenhagen
Hi, On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 12:08:39PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > routine device_set_status( > > device : device_t; > > in flavor : dev_flavor_t; > > in status : dev_status_t > > ); > Why no "in" or "out" be

Re: Interface for SCSI transactions ?

2011-09-12 Thread Samuel Thibault
olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Mon 12 Sep 2011 20:15:36 +0200, a écrit : > > Why no "in" or "out" before parameter "device" ? > > Well, I would have said that the first parameter is just special. (It's > the port on which the RPC was invoked; basically it's only there to give > it a name.) However, I