[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <646765f40905141801k5ae6249p925a4a377652c62e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:01:33 +1000
From: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
To: adam radford <aradford@...il.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
"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 Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:58, adam radford <aradford@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
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.
E.g. msleep(), mutex_trylock(), etc are implemented in the Windows
layer by mapping them to the Windows functions to do the same.
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@...il.com
.Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/
--
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