[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b1bc6a000905141758y20aa7852h8b1012e3da6f8c0f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:58:03 -0700
From: adam radford <aradford@...il.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: "Mukker, Atul" <Atul.Mukker@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Austria, Winston" <Winston.Austria@....com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFQ] New driver architecture questions
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> 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.
-Adam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists