2002-08-05 23:51:54

by Martin J. Bligh

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

This patch is from Matt Dobson. It corrects the definition of
xquad_portio, getting rid of a compile warning.
Tested on NUMA-Q and std 2-way SMP system through LTP.

Please apply,

Martin.

diff -Nur linux-2.5.25-vanilla/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c linux-2.5.25-patched/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
--- linux-2.5.25-vanilla/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c Fri Jul 5 16:42:31 2002
+++ linux-2.5.25-patched/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c Thu Jul 11 15:30:03 2002
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@
static int lines, cols;

#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIQUAD
-static void * const xquad_portio = NULL;
+static void * xquad_portio = NULL;
#endif

#include "../../../../lib/inflate.c"


2002-08-06 12:42:05

by Alan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 00:53, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> This patch is from Matt Dobson. It corrects the definition of
> xquad_portio, getting rid of a compile warning.

Marcelo - I have a much cleaner change for this.

2002-08-06 13:46:08

by Martin J. Bligh

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

>> This patch is from Matt Dobson. It corrects the definition of
>> xquad_portio, getting rid of a compile warning.
>
> Marcelo - I have a much cleaner change for this.

Can you publish it? ;-)

Thanks,

M.

2002-08-06 14:43:09

by Alan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 14:47, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >> This patch is from Matt Dobson. It corrects the definition of
> >> xquad_portio, getting rid of a compile warning.
> >
> > Marcelo - I have a much cleaner change for this.
>
> Can you publish it? ;-)

I did - its in -ac4

2002-08-06 15:05:37

by Martin J. Bligh

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

>> >> This patch is from Matt Dobson. It corrects the definition of
>> >> xquad_portio, getting rid of a compile warning.
>> >
>> > Marcelo - I have a much cleaner change for this.
>>
>> Can you publish it? ;-)
>
> I did - its in -ac4

The STANDALONE thing? I'm not convinced that's really any cleaner,
it makes even more of a mess of io.h than there was already (though
we could consider that a lost cause ;-)).

What's your objection to just throwing in a defn of xquad_portio?
A preference for burying the messy stuff in header files? Seems to
me that as you have to define STANDALONE now, the point is moot.

M.

2002-08-06 16:32:01

by Alan

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 16:06, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> The STANDALONE thing? I'm not convinced that's really any cleaner,
> it makes even more of a mess of io.h than there was already (though
> we could consider that a lost cause ;-)).
>
> What's your objection to just throwing in a defn of xquad_portio?
> A preference for burying the messy stuff in header files? Seems to
> me that as you have to define STANDALONE now, the point is moot.

Because you are assuming there will be -one- kind of wackomatic PC
system - IBM's. The chances are there will be more than one as other
vendors like HP, Compaq and Dell begin shipping stuff. Having
__STANDALONE__ works for all the cases instead of exporting xquad this
hpmagic that and compaq the other in an ever growing cess pit

2002-08-06 17:24:24

by Martin J. Bligh

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

>> The STANDALONE thing? I'm not convinced that's really any cleaner,
>> it makes even more of a mess of io.h than there was already (though
>> we could consider that a lost cause ;-)).
>>
>> What's your objection to just throwing in a defn of xquad_portio?
>> A preference for burying the messy stuff in header files? Seems to
>> me that as you have to define STANDALONE now, the point is moot.
>
> Because you are assuming there will be -one- kind of wackomatic PC
> system - IBM's. The chances are there will be more than one as other
> vendors like HP, Compaq and Dell begin shipping stuff. Having
> __STANDALONE__ works for all the cases instead of exporting xquad this
> hpmagic that and compaq the other in an ever growing cess pit

OK, fair enough. Would a simpler approach to what you've done be
to do in io.h something like:

#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIQUAD
#ifdef STANDALONE
#define xquad_portio 0
#else
extern void *xquad_portio; /* Where the IO area was mapped */
#endif
#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIQUAD */

Or something along these lines ... ? Would make the changeset
somewhat smaller. Seems to work from 30 seconds thought, but
haven't tried it (yet).

M.

2002-08-15 22:47:40

by Matthew Dobson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

diff -Nur linux-2.5.31-vanilla/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c linux-2.5.31-xquad/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c
--- linux-2.5.31-vanilla/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c Sat Aug 10 18:41:40 2002
+++ linux-2.5.31-xquad/arch/i386/boot/compressed/misc.c Thu Aug 15 14:28:33 2002
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
* High loaded stuff by Hans Lermen & Werner Almesberger, Feb. 1996
*/

+#define STANDALONE
+
#include <linux/linkage.h>
#include <linux/vmalloc.h>
#include <linux/tty.h>
@@ -120,10 +122,6 @@
static int vidport;
static int lines, cols;

-#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIQUAD
-static void * const xquad_portio = NULL;
-#endif
-
#include "../../../../lib/inflate.c"

static void *malloc(int size)
diff -Nur linux-2.5.31-vanilla/include/asm-i386/io.h linux-2.5.31-xquad/include/asm-i386/io.h
--- linux-2.5.31-vanilla/include/asm-i386/io.h Sat Aug 10 18:41:28 2002
+++ linux-2.5.31-xquad/include/asm-i386/io.h Thu Aug 15 15:17:31 2002
@@ -303,7 +303,11 @@
#endif

#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIQUAD
-extern void *xquad_portio; /* Where the IO area was mapped */
+ #ifdef STANDALONE
+ #define xquad_portio 0
+ #else /* !STANDALONE */
+ extern void *xquad_portio; /* Where the IO area was mapped */
+ #endif /* STANDALONE */
#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIQUAD */

/*


Attachments:
xquad_fixup-2531.patch (1.22 kB)