On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:42:47 PDT (-0700), h...@zytor.com wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 03:50 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> While I don't think this was ever meant to be exposed to userspace, if
>> anyone is using it then this will at least provide a correct (if
>> unlikely) definition.
>>
>>
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 13:42:47 PDT (-0700), h...@zytor.com wrote:
> On 09/14/2015 03:50 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> While I don't think this was ever meant to be exposed to userspace, if
>> anyone is using it then this will at least provide a correct (if
>> unlikely) definition.
>>
>>
On 09/14/2015 03:50 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> While I don't think this was ever meant to be exposed to userspace, if
> anyone is using it then this will at least provide a correct (if
> unlikely) definition.
>
> MAX_RAW_MINORS used to be used in the kernel, where it's been replaced
> with
On 09/14/2015 03:50 PM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> While I don't think this was ever meant to be exposed to userspace, if
> anyone is using it then this will at least provide a correct (if
> unlikely) definition.
>
> MAX_RAW_MINORS used to be used in the kernel, where it's been replaced
> with
While I don't think this was ever meant to be exposed to userspace, if
anyone is using it then this will at least provide a correct (if
unlikely) definition.
MAX_RAW_MINORS used to be used in the kernel, where it's been replaced
with CONFIG_MAX_RAW_MINORS.
Note that there's a checkpatch.pl
While I don't think this was ever meant to be exposed to userspace, if
anyone is using it then this will at least provide a correct (if
unlikely) definition.
MAX_RAW_MINORS used to be used in the kernel, where it's been replaced
with CONFIG_MAX_RAW_MINORS.
Note that there's a checkpatch.pl
6 matches
Mail list logo