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 +
