From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:05:40 -0700 From: Val Henson To: Murray Jensen Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Message-ID: <20020325150540.B23479@boardwalk> References: <16802.1017017050@msa.cmst.csiro.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <16802.1017017050@msa.cmst.csiro.au>; from Murray.Jensen@cmst.csiro.au on Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:44:10AM +1100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 11:44:10AM +1100, Murray Jensen wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:09:30 -0700, Val Henson writes: > >How about one BI_IGNORE type, and driver writers and firmware authors > >can put whatever they feel like inside that bi_rec? > > The kernel should simply ignore any bi_rec it doesn't know about. You don't > need a special record tag for this. Any bi_recs within bi_recs are all ignored > in one fell swoop, since the outer record tag is unknown. I know most of you understand this, but I just wanted to make it clear: The kernel should simply ignore any bi_rec it doesn't know about - and does. The question is, how can we guarantee that the kernel doesn't know about that bi_rec? The answer is that we need to reserve at least one (or several, under Ben's plan) bi_rec types that are guaranteed not to be used by the kernel. That's all I was trying to say. -VAL ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/