Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

["Martin J. Bligh" <Martin.Bligh@us.ibm.com>]

>> The STANDALONE thing? I'm not convinced that's really any cleaner,
>> it makes even more of a mess of io.h than there was already (though
>> we could consider that a lost cause ;-)). 
>> 
>> What's your objection to just throwing in a defn of xquad_portio?
>> A preference for burying the messy stuff in header files? Seems to
>> me that as you have to define STANDALONE now, the point is moot.
> 
> Because you are assuming there will be -one- kind of wackomatic PC
> system - IBM's. The chances are there will be more than one as other
> vendors like HP, Compaq and Dell begin shipping stuff. Having
> __STANDALONE__ works for all the cases instead of exporting xquad this
> hpmagic that and compaq the other in an ever growing cess pit

OK, fair enough. Would a simpler approach to what you've done be
to do in io.h something like:

#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIQUAD
 #ifdef STANDALONE
  #define xquad_portio 0
 #else
  extern void *xquad_portio;    /* Where the IO area was mapped */
 #endif
#endif /* CONFIG_MULTIQUAD */

Or something along these lines ... ? Would make the changeset
somewhat smaller. Seems to work from 30 seconds thought, but 
haven't tried it (yet).

M.