From owner-freebsd-current Sun Oct 20 21:53: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3993437B401; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:52:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A4743E6E; Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:52:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA07119; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 14:52:47 +1000 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:03:40 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: peter@wemm.org, , , Subject: Re: Conflicting declarations for ffs() In-Reply-To: <20021020.220345.111000843.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: <20021021145811.N9804-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote: > Most of the problem is that FreeBSD doesn't have an interface to inb, > etc that's defined in an approved header. Bruce says cpufunc.h isn't > it, but then doesn't define one. Others say that this is OK, but it > really isn't. There needs to be something where this is well > defined. Note, inb, et al, aren't i386 only, per se, because the > concept of doing I/O is present even on machines with only memory > mapped I/O. But defining a sane interface to it gets tricky... Something like bus-space is needed in general. This may be insane. inb() can can be supplied by applications using a whole 1 line of asm if they only need inb(). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message