Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:05:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:05:37 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:35770 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:05:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 08:06:12 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Alan Cox cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , colpatch@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration Message-ID: <1245189818.1028621171@[10.10.2.3]> In-Reply-To: <1028649942.18130.172.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> References: <1028649942.18130.172.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 866 Lines: 24 >> >> 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. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/