Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.

To: tech-kern%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
From: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 04:05:05 +0000 (UTC)

uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost (Masao Uebayashi) writes:

>I agree.  And I always have a question: if dependencies are kept in
>the autoconf tree, why do you have to manually call config_defer()?

Apparently that's not treated as a dependency. Only the driver
knows if and what needs to be deferred. Would exposing this 
information make things easier?

-- 
-- 
                                Michael van Elst
Internet: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost
                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
  - From: Michael

References:
- Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
  - From: Masanobu SAITOH
- Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
  - From: Taylor R Campbell
- Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
  - From: Michael
- Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
  - From: Masao Uebayashi
- Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
  - From: Michael van Elst
- Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
  - From: Masao Uebayashi

Prev by Date: Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
Next by Date: Re: compile kernel
Previous by Thread: Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
Next by Thread: Re: Changing the return value of xxx_attach() from void to int.
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index