On 10/26/05 10:39 Scott Long said the following:
Apparently the original poster sent his question to me in private, then
sent it again to the mailing list right as I was responding in private.
apologies on that, scott. an initial search only turned up your message in
the archives, but
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 04:47 am, Dinesh Nair wrote:
On 10/26/05 10:39 Scott Long said the following:
Apparently the original poster sent his question to me in private, then
sent it again to the mailing list right as I was responding in private.
apologies on that, scott. an initial
John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 04:47 am, Dinesh Nair wrote:
On 10/26/05 10:39 Scott Long said the following:
Apparently the original poster sent his question to me in private, then
sent it again to the mailing list right as I was responding in private.
apologies on that,
On 10/26/05 23:54 Scott Long said the following:
The value of the map is an implementation detail, which is why it's an
opaque typedef. Portable code should always assume that the map has
valid data. Now, specifically for i386, if you have a device with a
right, so for portability's sake,
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 11:54 am, Scott Long wrote:
Perhaps on i386. Each arch implements sync(). Argh, it does look like
the memory barriers needed on e.g., Alpha aren't used with static buffers
because of the map != NULL check in sys/busdma.h. *sigh* I guess archs
that need
Apparently the original poster sent his question to me in private, then
sent it again to the mailing list right as I was responding in private.
Anyways, no need to continue to guess; if anyone has any questions, feel
free to ask.
Below is my response. Note that I edited it slightly to fix an
6 matches
Mail list logo
