Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

From: Martin J. Bligh (
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 12:23:56 EST

>> The STANDALONE thing? I'm not convinced that's really any cleaner,
>> it makes even more of a mess of io.h than there was already (though
>> we could consider that a lost cause ;-)).
>> What's your objection to just throwing in a defn of xquad_portio?
>> A preference for burying the messy stuff in header files? Seems to
>> me that as you have to define STANDALONE now, the point is moot.
> Because you are assuming there will be -one- kind of wackomatic PC
> system - IBM's. The chances are there will be more than one as other
> vendors like HP, Compaq and Dell begin shipping stuff. Having
> __STANDALONE__ works for all the cases instead of exporting xquad this
> hpmagic that and compaq the other in an ever growing cess pit

OK, fair enough. Would a simpler approach to what you've done be
to do in io.h something like:

  #define xquad_portio 0
  extern void *xquad_portio; /* Where the IO area was mapped */

Or something along these lines ... ? Would make the changeset
somewhat smaller. Seems to work from 30 seconds thought, but
haven't tried it (yet).


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:32 EST