On Jul 9, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
On Jul 9, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 20:26 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 9/7/07 20:20, "Hollis Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way, I wonder how PPC manages to build both drivers/char/
mem.c a
On Jul 9, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 20:26 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
On 9/7/07 20:20, "Hollis Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way, I wonder how PPC manages to build both drivers/char/
mem.c and
drivers/xen/char/mem.c without ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM?
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 20:26 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 9/7/07 20:20, "Hollis Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> By the way, I wonder how PPC manages to build both drivers/char/mem.c and
> >> drivers/xen/char/mem.c without ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM? The model is supposed to
> >> be
> >> that
On 9/7/07 20:20, "Hollis Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By the way, I wonder how PPC manages to build both drivers/char/mem.c and
>> drivers/xen/char/mem.c without ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM? The model is supposed to be
>> that mem_fops defined by the Xen file is picked up by the generic file. If
On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 10:01 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> By the way, I wonder how PPC manages to build both drivers/char/mem.c and
> drivers/xen/char/mem.c without ARCH_HAS_DEV_MEM? The model is supposed to be
> that mem_fops defined by the Xen file is picked up by the generic file. If
> !ARCH_HA
