Em Dom, 2006-04-09 às 18:50 -0700, Trent Piepho escreveu: > On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Dom, 2006-04-09 s 16:51 -0700, Trent Piepho escreveu: > > > Michael suggested that I try add the define to rename the struct in compat.h, > > > as this will remove a lot of compat code from all the drivers. What do you > > > say? All that #if stuff can build up to make quite a mess. > > Hmmm... #define mutex semaphore seems to be too dangerous, since it > > might change some non-struct names and might generate some naming > > conflicts. It would be nice if there were some way to change "struct > > mutex" into "struct semaphore", but I dunno any ways of doing this with > > gpp. > > I can make the change so that everything works and there are no conficts with > non-struct names. It will remove a lot of #if stuff. There will be no > problems or potential problems with the existing code. > > The only problem would be if someone later tried to create an identifier named > just 'mutex', and also created one named 'semaphore' which shared scope with > the 'mutex' one. Then they'd have to compile that on a pre-mutex kernel. Not > that dangerous I think. This is what I'm afraid. That's why I've decided to change that part at the drivers. Well, at that time, there were some semaphores left. I think situation now changed, since it seems that Ingo had applied mutex->semaphore change to all our stuff. Hmm... no. pwc is still using semaphore. Ok, go ahead. Cheers, Mauro. _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
