Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator

From: Khimenko Victor (khim@sch57.msk.ru)
Date: Sat Jul 08 2000 - 10:20:00 EDT

Next message: Khimenko Victor: "Re: kernel-headers fs.h / string.h"

Previous message: kmb: "Re: 2.4.0-test3-pre6 USB"
In reply to: Oliver Xymoron: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Next in thread: Andreas Schwab: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Reply: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In <E13AsCy-0005CO-00@g212.hadiko.de> Olaf Titz (olaf@bigred.inka.de) wrote:
> PS. Why does gcc (2.95.2) say "variable defined but not used" for
> cipe_ntoalock when I make it static?

In UP kernel, right ? It's correct: spin lock operations are nop's in case
of UP kernel...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Khimenko Victor: "Re: kernel-headers fs.h / string.h"
Previous message: kmb: "Re: 2.4.0-test3-pre6 USB"
In reply to: Oliver Xymoron: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Next in thread: Andreas Schwab: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Reply: Manfred Spraul: "Re: [RFC] solution for the inet_ntoa problem, buffer allocator"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 08 2000 - 10:32:46 EDT