Neil wrote:
>Is there any reason to replace this
>code?
>
Yes, it's ugly as hell.
As far as I can see, the only user of ate_malloc are a few rmalloc
calls. There is one rmalloc_align call, but afaics the function is not
implemented.
The code is filled with #defines that rename linux functions -
mutex_spinlock, spin_lock_destroy(), whatever.
There is so much renaming that they even create a prototype for a #define:
> arch/ia64/sn/io/sn1/pcibr.c
> L40: #define rmalloc atealloc
> L331: extern uint64_t rmalloc(struct map *mp, size_t size);
(it seems sn1 got killed recently, I searched in lxr.linux.no)
AFAICS ate_malloc should die, and the rmalloc callers should use
request_resource & friends from <linux/ioport.h>.
--
Manfred
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST