Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:34:48PM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
Andrew> yes, please do.
OK, here's a patch that changes them to 9 and 10. I would hold off
sending this to Linus until Michael has a chance to speak up, in case
there's a reason I don't know for choosing 0x30 and 0x31.
Here
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113162971606408&w=2
at the end there is a reasoning.
Well it may make userspace portability slightly easier for this
one case (exactly how, I'm not so sure because each architecture
has their own MADV_ defines anyway). I rather think this should
be left up to arch maintainers' numbering schemes, but...
So I think 9 and 10 will do too.
s/too// ?
0x30 and 0x31 broke parisc's numbering scheme.
By the way Nick was on CC list back than and haven't raised any
concerns :)
I probably would have assumed it had gone past arch maintainers
and so wouldn't have given it a second thought: I don't know a
great deal about the issues here. I just now happened to see the
parisc comment.
But no harm done this time.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
openib-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
