On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 08:10:54PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I think his goal was to get an prefix that describes the module
> uniquely. gart_* clearly does not fulfill that criteria.
>
> So basically he's replacing an
> ambigious-with-other-IOMMU-implementations prefix with an
> ambigious-with-AGP prefix. Seems like a rather pointless change.
Not at all - the present situation where GART specific code
masquerades as generic IOMMU code is confusing. I've heard from more
than one person who was confused by "how come I can enable an IOMMU
while CONFIG_IOMMU is off?" and "how come some iommu_xxx options
(which were really gart options...) don't actually affect the
(Calgary) IOMMU"?
If the variable names clash the correct solution is to s/gart/agpgart/
in the AGP code and then continue renaming gart specific bits 'gart'
rather than 'iommu'.
Cheers,
Muli
--
SYSTOR 2007 --- 1st Annual Haifa Systems and Storage Conference 2007
http://www.haifa.il.ibm.com/Workshops/systor2007/
Virtualization workshop: Oct 29th, 2007 | Storage workshop: Oct 30th, 2007
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
