From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754543AbZEODCV (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 23:02:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753596AbZEODCF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 23:02:05 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:43181 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753165AbZEODCE (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 23:02:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4A0CDB27.6090009@garzik.org> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:01:59 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Calaby CC: adam radford , "Mukker, Atul" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Austria, Winston" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFQ] New driver architecture questions References: <6C678488C5CEE74F813A4D1948FD2DC7A95E6D37@cosmail02.lsi.com> <4A0B858F.3080405@garzik.org> <6C678488C5CEE74F813A4D1948FD2DC7A95E6D38@cosmail02.lsi.com> <4A0B9B0D.6080006@garzik.org> <646765f40905141801k5ae6249p925a4a377652c62e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <646765f40905141801k5ae6249p925a4a377652c62e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.2.5 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Julian Calaby wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:58, adam radford wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Jeff Garzik 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. Correct. Jeff