On 3/3/06, Gianluca Guida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What exactly is memory_object_reply.cli doing in the device/
> directory? Wouldn't be more appropriate for it to stay in the vm/
> directory?
memory_object_reply.cli is a misleading name. What actually is is the
user version (.cli) of the kern
On 3/4/06, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any objections against removing the currently unused and
> apparently broken NORMA code from GNU Mach? (Currently `#if'ed out, see
> `bogus/norma_*.h'.)
Uh.. ehr... I know that it's code gone beyond all hope but... I was
right toda
Hello,
I've recently been working on cleaning the drivers-related code.
As you know, the linux glue that we are using at the moment have been
added only "recently" (in Mach time). Coexistance between old drivers
and "new" ones became possible by implementing a device emulation
feature, which basi
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 01:22:42PM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> I've recently been working on cleaning the drivers-related code.
I know. ;-)
> [...]
> This is bad IMHO, since device emulation is perfectly architecture
> independant [...]
Agreed.
> [ legacy/ directory ]
> And, furthermore, I
Hi!
Are there any objections against removing the currently unused and
apparently broken NORMA code from GNU Mach? (Currently `#if'ed out, see
`bogus/norma_*.h'.)
NORMA basically seems to implement a machanism for network transpartent
IPC.
Some comments about its inadequacies are available here
- Original Message -
From: "Gianluca Guida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:22 AM
Subject: Separating legacy drivers from device server.
Hello,
I've recently been working on cleaning the drivers-related code.
Thanks,
Gianluca
Thanks a million to you and T
Hello,
What exactly is memory_object_reply.cli doing in the device/
directory? Wouldn't be more appropriate for it to stay in the vm/
directory?
Here's a simple changelog in case the answers to my questions are
respectively "No Idea." and "Yes.".
2006-03-03 Gianluca Guida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 01:54:39PM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> It's almost only aesthetic but Makefile.in 's variable topfiles lacks
> Makerules.in entry.
Other things are missing as well, I suppose.
> This creates problems with 'make dist'.
Yes, so far I didn't take care of that at all. The
