Re: why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Subject: Re: why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?
From: Vincent Thomasset <vincent.thomasset@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:04:43 +0100
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701070934061.17672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701070506410.8111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <f284c33d0701070628n205fe0bax59a8eed1fd816534@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701070934061.17672@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi,

Here is a starting point
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/198453

HTH,
Vincent

--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ:           http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?
  - From: Robert P. J. Day

References:
- why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?
  - From: Robert P. J. Day
- Re: why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?
  - From: Mulyadi Santosa
- Re: why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?
  - From: Robert P. J. Day

Prev by Date: Re: good source for condensed kernel API?
Next by Date: Re: good source for condensed kernel API?
Previous by thread: Re: why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?
Next by thread: Re: why "__put_user_8" but no "__get_user_8" on i386?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Newbies FAQ] [Linux Kernel Mentors] [Linux Kernel Development] [IETF Annouce] [Git] [Networking] [Security] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux RAID] [Linux SCSI] [Linux ACPI]

Powered by Linux