[email protected], le Sat 14 Aug 2010 23:15:01 +0200, a écrit : > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:37:22PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > [email protected], le Tue 10 Aug 2010 00:02:58 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > - mach_port_t device,iopl_dev; > > > > - memory_object_t iopl_mem; > > > > + mach_port_t device,mem_dev; > > > > + memory_object_t mem_mem; > > > > > > mem_mem is a rather weird variable name. Perhaps you could rename it to > > > something clearer? Maybe mem_object... > > > > Well, from the point of view of Xorg, it is a device which gets mapped, > > even if inside gnumach it is called an object. > > Not sure what you mean. A Mach device (mem_dev in this case) can't > be mappend directly. You have to obtain a memory object (mem_mem) > which you can map. In this case we have memory object that describes > the physical RAM -- so the first "mem" and the second "mem" in this > variable name describe two completely different things...
To be honest, I truly don't care about the name at all. All I do care about is to get the patch commited eventually. So give us the variable names that shall be good and let's be done with it. Samuel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
