On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:48:16AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> David,
>
> On 14.11.2006 [09:10:25 -0600], Adam Litke wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 14:50 +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > > +/* Possibly these functions should go in the library itself.. */
> >
> > Yes, exactly what I was going to suggest. These are sufficiently
> > useful to other potential users that I think they should go in
> > hugeutils.c from the start. Other than that, looks good to me.
>
> Can you resend with this change?
I'd prefer to delay on that and do it as a separate patch.
Now that libhugetlbfs is out there, we want to be careful with the
ABI. That's why I didn't put these functions straight into the
library - I want to think a bit harder about whether they're a good
interface first.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list
Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
