tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

cpuset_t vs. cpu_set_t (again)




To: tech-userlevel%netbsd.org@localhost

Subject: cpuset_t vs. cpu_set_t (again)

From: Anthony Mallet <anthony.mallet%useless-ficus.net@localhost>

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:49:57 +0100


Hi,

Two weeks ago, I raised the question of renaming cpuset_t to cpu_set_t,
so that we can be source-compatible with the Linux definition (which has
cpu_set_t afaik).

rmind suggested that this could be possible but I would like to know what
has finally been decided, if anything has been decided.

Thanks for your answer!

Note: my problem comes from a stupid configure script that checks for
pthread_setaffinity_np() and if it finds it, then decides to call it with
a cpu_set_t parameter. I would like to avoid maintaining a separate patch
if NetBSD is going to change the type name...



Follow-Ups:

Re: cpuset_t vs. cpu_set_t (again)
From: J.T. Conklin




Prev by Date: Re: "valid shell"s

Next by Date: Re: cpuset_t vs. cpu_set_t (again)

Previous by Thread: "valid shell"s

Next by Thread: Re: cpuset_t vs. cpu_set_t (again)

Indexes:

reverse Date

reverse Thread

Old Index



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index