linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SEGEV defines

To: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: SEGEV defines
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:51:56 +0100
Cc: Bradley Bozarth <bbozarth@cisco.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <3DD3252E.8DB61CE6@mvista.com>; from george@mvista.com on Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:23:10PM -0800
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211131742480.11387-100000@bbozarth-lnx.cisco.com> <3DD3252E.8DB61CE6@mvista.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:23:10PM -0800, george anzinger wrote:

> I MUCH prefer a change to the kernel if one or the other
> needs to change.  The issue is, of course, IRIX
> compatability and what that means.  This comes up because I
> want to use the definitions in combination and the common
> bit makes a mess of things.  Still, it would be NICE if it
> matched the rest of the platforms.

The IRIX compatibility code seems unused and the constants aren't even
part of the ABI at all.  So in this case it indeed seems preferable to
change the kernel side.

Anybody disagrees?

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>