Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness..
From: Eric Anholt (eta_at_lclark.edu)
Date: 07/31/04
- Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH] Altix system controller communication driver"
- Maybe in reply to: Dave Airlie: "drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Next in thread: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Reply: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Reply: Dave Airlie: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: arjanv@redhat.com Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:57:17 -0700
On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 02:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 11:32, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > As long as you don't use the linux-y
> > "u32"-type types, BSD should be happy with the changes.
>
> can you explain why u32 would be outlawed? Surely it's trivial to do a
> typedef for u32 on BSD for drm ??
If there are nice standard types (uint32_t or u_int32_t, can't remember
which at the moment, I mentioned it in an email some time ago) out there
already that linux has too, why not use those?
-- Eric Anholt eta@lclark.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt@FreeBSD.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH] Altix system controller communication driver"
- Maybe in reply to: Dave Airlie: "drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Next in thread: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Reply: William Lee Irwin III: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Reply: Dave Airlie: "Re: drm - first steps towards 64-bit correctness.."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|