Ben Nizette wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 03:06 -0800, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 10:55 +0100, Douglas, Jim (Jim) wrote:
We are contemplating porting a large number of device drivers to Linux.
The pragmatic solution is to keep them in user mode (using the UIO
framework)
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 08:57 +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Ben Nizette wrote:
As in examples of the userspace half? Unfortunately uio-smx isn't ready
to fly thanks to some significant production delays but the userspace
half of the Hilscher CIF driver can be found at
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:30 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
I could agree, but the facto due to UIO license condition, a company
often uses UIO drivers, regardless performance, debug, etc, only as not
to public the code under GPL.
It sounds to me like you think that driver authors can sit down
Ben Nizette wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:30 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
I could agree, but the facto due to UIO license condition, a company
often uses UIO drivers, regardless performance, debug, etc, only as not
to public the code under GPL.
It sounds to me like you think that driver
No I don't think you can decide kernel or user space, indeed you can
read my previous posts, I quite agree with you, I meant the same to Bill
Gatliff.
Ben Nizette ha scritto:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:30 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
I could agree, but the facto due to UIO license condition, a
Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Ben Nizette wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:30 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
I could agree, but the facto due to UIO license condition, a company
often uses UIO drivers, regardless performance, debug, etc, only as not
to public the code under GPL.
It sounds to me
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 02:12 +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote:
David P. Quigley wrote:
Looking through the code I see two references to xattrs, one is the
index of the xattr table in the superblock and there seems to be struct
member in one of the inode structures that is an index into this
On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
None of the comments below are a reason against mainline inclusion, imo.
They should get handled, but whether that happens before or after a
merge doesn't really matter.
On Fri, 17 October 2008 16:42:50 +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 16:42 +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote:
[snip]
+
+struct squashfs_reg_inode {
+ __le16 inode_type;
+ __le16 mode;
+ __le16 uid;
+ __le16 guid;
+ __le32 mtime;
+
On Tue, 21 October 2008 12:14:26 -0400, David P. Quigley wrote:
On Fri, 2008-10-17 at 18:53 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
None of the comments below are a reason against mainline inclusion, imo.
They should get handled, but whether that happens before or after a
merge doesn't really matter.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:50:06 +1100
Ben Nizette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This adds pin change notification to the gpiolib sysfs interface. It
requires 16 extra bytes in gpio_desc iff CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS which in turn
means, eg, 4k of .bss usage on AVR32. Due to limitations in sysfs, this
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 00:42 +0100, Phillip Lougher wrote:
David P. Quigley wrote:
Looking through the code I noticed that you give certain object types
the same inode number for all instances of it (devices, fifo/sockets).
How is this done internally? Do these types of objects occupy
12 matches
Mail list logo
