Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:19:52 -0400 From: "John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell" <johnandsara2@cox.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Emeric POUPON <emeric.poupon@arkoon-netasq.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to properly handle several fonctions provided by the Winbond SuperIO chip? Message-ID: <53C09B48.8000709@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <R4hg1o00Z2X408g014hh58> References: <1118241087.138096.1403180509132.JavaMail.zimbra@arkoon-netasq.com> <HrsE1o01s2X408g01rsFrH> <53BF23A0.1000603@cox.net> <R4hg1o00Z2X408g014hh58>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, July 10, 2014 7:37:04 pm John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell > wrote: >> John Baldwin wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:21:59 am Emeric POUPON wrote: >>>> Thanks for your answer! > > No, the question is if you have two C files that are compiled into a single > loading object (foo.ko), do they call each other's functions directly or do > they use an indirection layer like kobj to call into each other. thx. i shouldn't answer (i asked) i just read linux kernel at times. i just assume the "two files" are both for the same kernel module and it would be ok. in which case using two C files isn't necessary ... but might confuse the Makefiles macros if they guess one C per mod try put both in one C file and spin the wheel why not try ? two diff mods call each other, in one .o or not, diff story i think
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53C09B48.8000709>