Thomas Schwinge, le Thu 24 Jul 2008 12:44:42 +0200, a écrit : > extern int copyin (const void *userbuf, void *kernelbuf, size_t cn); > > -extern int copyinmsg (vm_offset_t userbuf, vm_offset_t kernelbuf, size_t > cn); > +extern int copyinmsg (const void *userbuf, void *kernelbuf, size_t cn); > > See `i386/i386/locore.S': `copyin' and `copyinmsg' (and same for the out > variants) already have the same entry points. Now you also made them > equivalent at the C language level. Perhaps just get rid of one of those > two symbols? Or was there a real reason to have both functions with > different C language signatures point to the same implementation?
Oh, how odd. The only reason I could see would be to have copyin/copyinmsg differ just by one taking pointers and the other taking integers, but what was there before Barry's fixes was rather the converse (i.e. copyinmsg is used on buffers). I guess we should dig back further in the history of Mach, there should be a reason which might bite use in the future. Samuel
