Hello,
Current GNU Mach provides Linux's "software interrupts" (bottom
halves) by calling 'linux_soft_intr' during spl switches and Linux's
schedule() call.
However, Mach has support for software interrupts or similar,
obscurely called 'ASTs' (see kern/ast.c).
This patch make the glue use Mach A
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 01:55 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>Are you sure that changing the #ifdef to #if is the right
>>change?
>>
>> Quite, if you have specific concerns that I might have missed
>> then please speak up.
>
>Your patch is potentially a functional c
I got it but I mean the patch released by me (the first mail in
this topic) has the same problems than the patch released by ams? I
think they are differents.
They aren't different, mine is simply a cleaner version of yours.
Look at the #if's and you will see why they are equivalent.
__
On 1/31/06, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This applies to all patches in general, but we use discretion of course.We also take into account our past experiences with the submitter'sattitude and our impression of the submitter's technical aptitude.
Thanks,Marcus
I got it but I mean the
This is applied for the first patch too?
It only applies to perfectly OK patches which some people are simply
to lazy to understand properly.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:35:08AM -0500, I wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 11:01:22PM +0200, I wrote:
> > [...]
> > Fixing that issue properly isn't quite easy: GNU Mach's build system
> > needs to be reordered a bit.
> [...]
> Is this ok for everyone to be applied?
I just committed the follo
On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 09:11 -0200, Matheus Morais wrote:
> On 1/30/06, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> The patch contains a gratuitous change which
> is not explained. This is sufficient reason for us to not
> consider the
> patch.
>
On 1/30/06, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The patch contains a gratuitous change whichis not explained. This is sufficient reason for us to not consider thepatch.Thanks,Marcus
This is applied for the first patch too?
Thanks
Matheus Morais
__
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 09:52:18AM -0700, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> --- Shakthi Kannan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am trying to compile GNU Mach 1.3
> > i386/i386at/lpr.c
> >
> > Can anyone tell me what I should to get lpr.c
> > compiled? Only the files in the sources toplevel
> > directory and
