From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Val Henson Cc: Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:05:06 +0100 Message-Id: <20020326100507.5228@smtp.adsl.oleane.com> In-Reply-To: <20020325191616.J24258@boardwalk> References: <20020325191616.J24258@boardwalk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: >On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 05:46:49PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> Of course you want to add whatever additional bi_recs, and among the things >> I propose is the definition that the kernel will only use all-lowercase >> bi_rec types for it's own use leaving any other combo for other uses. > >Did you mean, the kernel will use all-uppercase bi_rec types? That's >what it's currently using. If you meant to say that the kernel will >use all-lowercase bi_rec types, I'm interested in knowing why it's >worth breaking backwards compatibility. Yes, sorry for the confusion. >> No. A BI_IGNORE makes no sense. A whole class of bi_rec types guaranteed >> not to be used by the kernel makes sense. > >Sure, that makes sense. Like the vendor specific major/minor numbers. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/