On 1 Jun 2001, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> We normally do not define anything to 0 - unless there's no other
> way. And looking briefly over your code there should be other
> solutions. Sorry, I'm limited in time currently, otherwise I would
> rewrite it myself.
OK, I'll check how to write it better and still get good optimization
results. Please don't bother writing it yourself -- we don't have any
kernel code yet, so there is no real need to get involved so much.
> Look at i386/lockf64.c for a cleaner example.
Hmm, glibc rules certainly look different from Linux's ones -- I tried to
avoid interspersing real code with preprocessor conditionals. Since you
state it's OK, I should have no problem with coding accrdingly.
> > It's a syscall wrapper. We want to export syscall wrappers, don't
> > we?
>
> No, not everything - we already export _test_and_set and that should
> be enough.
OK, then.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
|