* [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
@ 2002-08-05 23:53 Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-06 14:04 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2002-08-05 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel
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"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
2002-08-06 14:04 ` Alan Cox
@ 2002-08-06 13:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-06 16:05 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2002-08-06 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, colpatch
>> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
2002-08-05 23:53 [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration Martin J. Bligh
@ 2002-08-06 14:04 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-06 13:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2002-08-06 14:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
2002-08-06 16:05 ` Alan Cox
@ 2002-08-06 15:06 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-06 17:54 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2002-08-06 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, colpatch
>> >> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
2002-08-06 13:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2002-08-06 16:05 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-06 15:06 ` Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2002-08-06 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, colpatch
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
2002-08-06 17:54 ` Alan Cox
@ 2002-08-06 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-15 22:48 ` Matthew Dobson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Martin J. Bligh @ 2002-08-06 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: linux-kernel, colpatch
>> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
2002-08-06 15:06 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2002-08-06 17:54 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-06 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2002-08-06 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel, colpatch
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration
2002-08-06 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
@ 2002-08-15 22:48 ` Matthew Dobson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Dobson @ 2002-08-15 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: Alan Cox, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1366 bytes --]
Alan & Martin,
How does this look? I've combined what Martin suggested with what Alan has in
his tree... Comments?
-Matt
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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: xquad_fixup-2531.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1252 bytes --]
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 */
/*
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-08-15 22:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-08-05 23:53 [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-06 14:04 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-06 13:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-06 16:05 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-06 15:06 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-06 17:54 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-06 17:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-15 22:48 ` Matthew Dobson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).