On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 12:11 -0400, Peter Keilty wrote: > Daniel Walker wrote: > >On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 11:42 -0400, Peter Keilty wrote: > >>>There is a read(), and a vread() did you modify the slow syscall path to > >>>use the vread()? > >>> > >John mentioned that he thought fsys_mmio_ptr could be held in the vread > >pointer. vread() is used in x86 for vsyscalls. It looks like you've used > >the update_vsyscall() which is also used for vsyscalls. So vread could > >also be used .. Have you considered that at all? > > > > > No, but yes it can be done, overloading the meaning. Yea. I'm not really psyched about overloading the vread pointer's use. I mentioned it could be done if the #ifdef was objected to, but it seems a bit abusive. The #ifdef isn't great, but I think its something I can live with for now. At least its explicit. > It would need to change in the future if vread was needed. > I have no strong argument against using it. Yea. I'd hold off on that for now. thanks -john - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|