diffs around makeiplcookie()

[Tetsuya Isaki <isaki%pastel-flower.jp@localhost>]

I looked makeiplcookie() and splraiseipl() in m68k ports.
And I wonder their implementations are so many various.  If it's
possible (if there's no other special reason), unite them?

1) makeiplcookie() is inlined or not.
        inlined:     amiga, cesfic, luna68k, hp300, mac68k
        not inlined: atari, mvme68k, news68k, next68k, sun68k, x68k

   is there any reason to not inlined in these port?


2) makeiplcookie() (or splraiseipl()) uses a table which convert
   IPL_XXX into PSL_XXX.
   The table name is ipl2spl_table or ipl2psl_table?

        ipl2spl_table[]:  amiga, cesfic, luna68k
        ipl2psl_table[]:  atari, mvme68k, news68k, next68k, sun68k, x68k
        hp300_ipl2psl[]:  hp300
        mac68k_ipls[]:    mac68k

   It should unite them to ipl2psl_table or ipl2spl_table
   (expect hp300 and mac68k?).


3) According to the discussion before
   (http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2006/07/01/0000.html
   by yamt-san and tsutsui-san),  The conversion by ipl2XXX_table[]
   should be in makeiplcookie() than splraiseipl() ?

        used in makeiplcookie(): atari, luna68k, hp300, mvme68k,
                                 news68k, next68k, sun68k, x68k
        used in splraiseipl():   amiga, cesfic, mac68k


4) ipl2XXX_table[] should be uint16_t, not int?
   Because (a member of) ipl_cookie_t is uint16_t.

        int:      amiga, atari, cesfic, luna68k, mvme68k,
                  news68k, next68k, sun68k, x68k
        u_short:  hp300, mac68k


5) ipl_cookie_t's member name.

        _ipl:    amiga, cesfic, mac68k (which contains IPL_XXX)
        _spl:    luna68k               (which contains PSL_XXX)
        _psl:    hp300, atari, mvme68k, news68k,
                 next68k, sun68k, x68k (which contains PSL_XXX)

   Only luna68k is different.

Any comments, please?
---
Tetsuya Isaki <isaki%pastel-flower.jp@localhost>