Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> Thomas Schlichter <[email protected]> 17.10.09 21:48 >>> > >What do you think about these patches? > > Functionality-wise this looks fine to me; whether the core sysfs changes > are acceptable I can't judge, though.
OK, who can? Or shall I simply ask get_maintainer.pl again? > However, I would recommend folding the last two arguments of > mtrr_add_unaligned(), i.e. use mtrr_usage != NULL as the increment > argument passed to mtrr_add(). Good idea, I will do so this evening... > And patches 5 and 6 would apparently not build right now, as they're > failing to pass the new 5th argument to mtrr_add_unaligned(). *Grml* you are of course right. But I am not sure if these both patches are a goot idea at all. > Also, why do you add x86-specific code to drivers/pci-sysfs.c when the > function called there (pci_mmap_page_range()) already is arch-specific? > Moving your addition there would also allow covering the related > (legacy?) procfs based functionality... pci_release() could also become > arch-specific, with a fall-back definition to NULL. You are right, I should do that... > Additionally, I would suggest making those code portions depend on > CONFIG_X86_MTRR rather than CONFIG_X86, so that you don't > needlessly (try to) allocate the mtrr_usage vector. Good idea, I will do so. Thank you very much for your feedback, I'll hopefully come up with an even better version tonight... Kind regards, Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
