From fnaumann@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Thu Dec 11 14:18:17 2003 Subject: Re: [MiNT] Shutdown() discussion From: Petr Stehlik To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi In-Reply-To: References: <1071034718.3fd6b15e15223@imp2-l.free.fr> <001f01c3bef0$c01e3720$420963d9@blaszak> <1071045922.754.9.camel@joy.sophics> <009f01c3bf91$b1b38040$eb0863d9@blaszak> <1071134219.769.45.camel@joy.sophics> <1071137372.743.58.camel@joy.sophics> <1071139002.769.69.camel@joy.sophics> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1071148188.769.90.camel@joy.sophics> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:09:49 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at sophics.cz Delivered-To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: joy@sophics.cz Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-ID: X-List-ID: On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 13:42, Frank Naumann wrote: > > So let me repeat again, the Cookie was a wrapper for TOS. Feel free to > > define a different wrapper for MiNT. > > It's just the problem that you invent a hackish interface again and now > I must adapt the kernel to workaround these wrong designed interface. I don't understand what is hackish on adding one or two calls. Or did you mean the kernel would have to workaround the cookie? No. The cookie is not there. Forget it. There is no cookie. Currently NatFeats use two function calls - one for obtaining the ID and the other one for actually invoking the function. Can you imagine adding two such calls to internal MiNT API or is this the hackish interface as you call it? If you consider it hackish then I can't imagine how HW I/O would be cleaner. Petr