On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:58, adam radford <aradford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Taking drivers/net/e1000e as an >> example, >> >> hw.h hardware-specific defines, ~cross-OS >> 82571.c code specific to 8257x chip family, ~cross-OS > > 82571.c contains Linux specific code such as: including Linux > specific header files, calls to msleep(). > >> ich8lan.c code specific to ICH8+ chip family, ~cross-OS > > ich8lan.c contains Linux specific code such as: might_sleep(), > mutex_trylock(), mutex_unlock(), udelay(), msleep(), writel(), readl(). > > Perhaps this is a bad example? It seems like the "common layer" > sections that are "cross-OS" shouldn't contain any Linux specific code at all. I think the implication is that the cross-OS parts are coded, as it happens, in the linux coding style, using linux functions, but then a Windows layer maps these to Windows specific functions. E.g. msleep(), mutex_trylock(), etc are implemented in the Windows layer by mapping them to the Windows functions to do the same. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
