 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-merge
[Xen-merge] i386's bug.h
| To: | <xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-merge] i386's bug.h |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:07:33 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:09:36 +0000 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-merge-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | xen-merge <xen-merge.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-merge@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-merge>, <mailto:xen-merge-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-merge>, <mailto:xen-merge-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-merge-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Are there any particular reasons why xen/i386 must use a different BUG() scheme than normal i386, while x86-64 doesn't have such a requirement (and hence also no specialized bug.h)? It would seem to me that we could just throw away include/asm-i386/mach-xen/asm/bug.h ... Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-merge mailing list Xen-merge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-merge |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-merge] [PATCH] fix SMP alternatives, Jan Beulich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-merge] i386's bug.h, Gerd Knorr |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-merge] [PATCH] fix SMP alternatives, Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-merge] i386's bug.h, Gerd Knorr |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
