Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 16:06, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 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